R

Indian Agribusiness
Cultivating Future Opportunities
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global management consulting
firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner
with clients from the private, public, and not–for–profit sectors in all
regions to identify their highest–value opportunities, address their most
critical challenges, and transform their enterprises. Our customized
approach combines deep insight into the dynamics of companies and
markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization.
This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable competitive advantage,
build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in
1963, BCG is a private company with 77 offices in 42 countries. For more
information, please visit bcg.com.
INDIAN AGRIBUSINESS
CULTIVATING FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES

ASHISH IYER

ABHEEK SINGHI

J  | T B C G

 | I A — C F O
 CONTENTS

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 NEED FOR AGRICULTURAL REFORMS

India and Agriculture
The Need for Immediate Action
Need for a New Revolution
Purpose and Coverage of the Report

 PRODUCT LANDSCAPE
Introduction
Food Grains Market in India
Dairy Industry in India
Meat Industry in India
Fruits and Vegetables Segment in India

 INPUTS
Seeds
Fertilisers
Pesticides
Credit
Insurance
Information
Opportunity for Convergence in Distribution

 FARMING
Levers to Debottleneck Farming
Wasteland Farming

 POSTHARVEST SUPPLY CHAIN

Storage / Warehousing
Logistics

 FOOD PROCESSING, BRANDING AND RETAILING

Food Processing Industry
Food Retail — A Fast Growing industry

 SYNTHESIS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction
Agriculture — Vision 2020
Driving Overall Growth
Imperatives for Key Players

 FOR FURTHER READING

 NOTE TO THE READER

T B C G | 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
D  I   acclaim for
its manufacturing and services sector,
agriculture, which has been critical to the
domestic economy, continues to be affected by
many challenges that are hindering the sector
from realizing its true potential.
Agribusinesses are estimated to contribute
about 30 percent to India’s gross domestic
product, with the agriculture sector employing
the largest proportion of the workforce
(approximately 45.5 percent, according to a
recent survey by the Labor Bureau).
Agribusinesses continue to be a strong lever of
growth for the Indian economy.
In fact, for thousands of years, agriculture and
related businesses have played a crucial role
in the socioeconomic development of the
country. And even in the new millennium,
when technology has touched every aspect of
our lives, a majority of Indian farmers continue
to deploy antiquated agrarian practices.
These practices, along with issues like spiraling
inflation, burgeoning imports, and a multitude
of challenges faced by the agricultural sector,
pose a serious threat to the country’s aspiration
to emerge as an economic superpower.
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) realized
the need to highlight agribusiness opportunities
for each element of the agriculture value chain
— be it within products (such as food grains,
 | I A — C F O
dairy, meat, and fruits and vegetables), inputs
(like fertilizers, credit or crop insurance),
farming practices, warehousing, logistics, food
processing, or food retail.
The purpose of this report is to highlight a
gamut of agribusiness opportunities in the
Indian context. It showcases emerging
business models for each of these
opportunities, including models that have
worked successfully in other economies as
well as innovative models being launched by
players in India. The aim is to learn from
global best practices and adapt them to the
Indian environment. The report aims to build
on the various efforts undertaken in the past
to resolve issues plaguing Indian agriculture.
While it does not aim to be the last word on
potential solutions to these issues, it does
hope to start a discussion on them.
Unlocking the Potential for
Agribusinesses in India
Agribusinesses are important to India for
multiple reasons — such as, their contribution
to the economy, the number of people they
employ, strategic reasons of food security,
providing raw material to other industries,
generating demand for other industries, and
in more recent times for inflation.
Agribusiness is the largest business in the
country — significantly larger than other
businesses — and is growing rapidly. However,
the potential to grow is even more significant.
There is a pressing need to focus on agriculture
and develop agribusinesses. India has failed to
sustain the momentum generated in the early
years after Independence. The production
growth of principal crops has declined over the
past few years — from 3.2 percent p.a. over
1980–89 to 1.8 percent p.a. over 2000–09.
Food security is a major concern. Compared to
global peers, India’s productivity across crops
is low. Growth in productivity has also been
slower. This has stoked food inflation which
could snowball into a crisis not very different
from the one experienced in the mid–1960s.
Businesses and related infrastructure across
the agriculture value chain are
underdeveloped. The sector is unable to
attract investment due to structural
inefficiencies and lack of economically
remunerative business models.
Product Landscape
The Indian agriculture industry can be
classified into four major product groups —
food grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, and
meat. Together, these product groups account
for approximately 85 percent of private
consumption expenditure on food. Amongst
these, food grains have the largest share.
This report looks at different product segments
and the opportunities therein. Each of these
product categories has a different value chain
applicable to them. Our report analyzes the
value chain of these product segments to
understand the nature of their inherent
challenges and opportunities. It also examines
the successful business models to have
emerged within each of these product
categories in India, as well as globally.
C   —   
  I
India is the world’s largest consumer of pulses,
which are a major source of protein for the
domestic population. Being a large country,
India presents a sizable business opportunity in
cereals and pulses; both categories that constitute
a significant portion of local food consumption.
Cereals: The cereals market in India is worth
approximately Rs. 3,000 billion and has been
growing at an annualized rate of 3 percent for
the last five years. Among cereals, rice and
wheat account for almost 85 to 90 percent of
the overall market — both in terms of value
and volumes. Since the advent of the Green
Revolution, India has achieved food sufficiency
in cereals, and has had negligible imports.
Pulses: A variety of pulses are a major source
of protein for a large proportion of the
population. The pulses market in India is
estimated to be worth approximately Rs. 550
billion and has been growing at an annualized
rate of 4 percent since 2007. Bengal gram and
tur are the most consumed pulses and have
grown at a rate of 8 percent, and 1 percent,
respectively, for the last five years.
Opportunities in food grains
There are four key dimensions where
opportunities exist:
1. Value chain reorganization: This dimension
primarily relates to inefficiencies on
account of a large number of intermediaries
in the value chain, resulting in escalations
of retail prices. For some food grains, this
spike can be as high as 18 to 22 percent of
the retail price.
2. Post–harvest management: This aspect
pertains to opportunities in reducing
wastages through improved storage and
integrated pest management. For example,
some pulses have up to 10 percent wastages
due to poor post–harvest management.
3. Branding of food grains: Opportunities
related to branding across food grains need
to be explored.
4. Processed foods branding: This dimension
explores opportunities for branded retailing
of secondary/tertiary processed products.
D —     
India is the world’s largest milk producer
(approximately 120 million tonnes in 2011).
The size of the dairy industry was estimated
to be about Rs. 1,600 billion in 2009. It is
twice the size of the BPO sector, and is a source
of income for millions of farmers.
T B C G | 
 Unorganized players account for nearly 75
percent of the entire dairy industry and
dominate key segments like liquid milk, ethnic
products, ghee, and yoghurt. A majority of the
marketable surplus (about 70 percent) continues
to be handled by the unorganized players, while
cooperatives and private dairies handle only
about 20 percent, and 10 percent, respectively.
The organized dairy industry is expected to
grow at a compounded annual growth rate of
17 percent, from approximately Rs. 350 billion
to Rs. 750 billion, through 2015. Select product
segments like liquid milk, yoghurt and cheese
are expected to register higher growth rates.
Rising incomes and changing consumer
preferences for processed dairy are expected to
be the key growth drivers for organized dairy.
Key imperatives to succeed in the dairy industry:
• Setting up backward linkages and managing
procurement costs: It is critical to provide
sustainable dairy farming (breeding services,
health care, etc.) and improve accessibility
to feed and credit in order to increase
productivity and reduce costs. Distribution
of products (both fresh and chilled/frozen)
remains a challenge, given India’s geographic
expanse and poor infrastructure. Fresh
products typically require distributed
manufacturing (own or contracted) as
distribution costs become prohibitive.
Moreover, distribution becomes unviable if
products are manufactured centrally. A
robust distribution network is also required
for retailing or home delivery.
• Manufacturing excellence to control costs
and to produce ethnic products/variants:
Players need to increasingly focus on product
innovation to cater to trends like the ongoing
shi toward processed dairy products
(including functional foods like fortified or
pro–biotic dairy, ethnic products like raita,
flavored cheese spreads, etc.). Innovations
would also be required in packaging to
effectively tackle poor storage infrastructure,
Indian conditions, and buyer preferences for
quantity.
M —   
 
The Indian meat industry is estimated at
about Rs. 500 billion, and is dominated by
 | I A — C F O
bovine meat (approximately Rs.190 billion),
followed by chicken (about Rs. 185 billion)
and ovine meat (nearly Rs. 130 billion). The
total meat production in India is estimated at
about 6 million tonnes per annum.
The domestic meat market is dominated by
the unorganized sector or the ‘wet market’,
with a share of 80 to 90 percent. This is due to
multiple factors including a higher preference
for fresh meat, low penetration of organized
retail (especially in the food segment), weak
food safety norms, and high cost of cold chain
infrastructure.
India is one of the key players in the buffalo
meat export market. India’s share in the global
meat trade has been limited and is dominated
by beef (8.3 percent share of global exports),
while chicken exports are negligible. Buffalo
meat has the highest organized presence, of
approximately 22 percent, mainly on account of
exports.
Empirical evidence indicates an increasing
proportion of non–vegetarians in the Indian
population. This trend is primarily being
attributed to a rise in income levels being
seen by the populace and relaxing social
considerations associated with meat
consumption.
Poultry has strong growth potential: Chicken
is a low–cost, high–quality source of protein
and holds the potential to bridge the ‘protein
gap’ currently witnessed in the country. Poultry
has strong export potential, too.
However, the key impediments to realizing
this potential have been price competitiveness
and quality issues which can be addressed
through appropriate policy initiatives and
private investments.
The overall meat industry is expected to grow
at a CAGR of approximately 12 percent
through FY 2015 and chicken is likely to
overtake beef as the largest meat segment in
India.
The organized segment is expected to grow at
over 15 percent through FY 2015, to about Rs.
120 billion, due to increasing demand for
processed meat.
Key imperatives for meat players to succeed:
• Broader value chain integration through
feed manufacturing, contract farming, and
veterinary care services holds the key to
greater cost efficiencies and standardizing
quality.
• Scale and diversification in order to tap
local and export markets effectively: Apart
from delivering economies of scale, larger
operations reduce compliance costs on a
per unit basis. Due to the steadily increasing
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards,
there has been an increase in compliance
costs which can only be justified by large–
scale operations.
F   —   
 
India is the second–largest market for Fruits
and Vegetables (F&Vs), estimated to be
approximately Rs. 3,100 billion in 2010. The
share of fruits in the production has been in
the range of 33 to 35 percent, with vegetables
accounting for 65 to 67 percent.
Although the second largest market overall,
India’s per capita consumption of F&Vs lags
behind other countries (On fruit, it is almost
half that of China and a third of the US).
Therefore as India’s per capita consumption of
fruits and vegetables increases, it bolsters
India’s importance as an F&V consumer.
The share of F&Vs in India’s private final
consumption expenditure on food has ranged
from 26 to 28 percent in the past five years (FY
2005 to 2010). However, India is a marginal
player in the global trade, as far as F&Vs are
concerned.
Key imperatives for F&V players to succeed:
• Improve farming output: By closely working
with the farmer, assisting him, and treating
him as a partner, private players can help
bring about better yields and quality of
produce. Contract farming is an
arrangement that has gained moderate
acceptance but can be an example of more
tight knit arrangements between farmers
and corporations.
• Create efficient supply chains, achieve scale
and integrate: Private players will benefit
by building efficiencies and reducing costs.
This can be achieved by various means,
such as bypassing the traditional
intermediaries, which will help in reducing
their sourcing costs and wastage levels,
thereby bringing down the cost to the
consumer. Private players also need to
make substantial investments in cold
storage, warehousing, ripening facilities,
etc. in order to improve various supply
chain elements.
• Meeting quality standards for exports:
Indian F&V exports suffer because of their
inability to meet international quality
standards. Players in this space will have to
overcome this challenge by partnering with
farmers, making investments in
infrastructure (such as port facilities,
testing, and packaging), and by helping
farmers achieve the requisite international
certifications (typically, a precondition to
export).
• Increase processing levels: F&V processing
is a high–growth sub–segment. However, in
order to realize its potential and succeed in
this space, players will need to focus on
critical areas such as tie–ups with large
number of farmers, establishing processing
facilities adjacent to farms, and tightly
managing the entire chain to ensure strict
control over costs.
Inputs
Agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizer,
pesticides play a critical role in extracting
higher agricultural yield. The growth of Indian
agriculture heavily depends on improving the
quality and availability of inputs for the
farmers. This report covers six key inputs–
seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, credit, insurance
and information.
S
The use of the right variety of seeds is
essential to ensure high yield. The Indian
seed industry has seen tremendous growth in
the past and has become the sixth–largest
seed industry in the world — it was estimated
at about Rs. 70 billion in FY 2009 and is
expected to grow to approximately Rs. 125
billion in FY 2015.
T B C G | 
 The industry is divided into varieties and
hybrids. The public sector players are present
mainly in varieties, with their private sector
counterparts operating only in hybrids. Despite
the success of hybrid seeds in cash crops, the
penetration of hybrid seeds is limited and is
currently estimated at about 25 percent of the
total seed market in India.
There are stringent regulations preventing
the introduction of Genetically Modified
(GM) seeds. All non–varietal seeds need to be
certified by the government prior to sale.
Further, the sale of all GM seeds, except for
cotton, is prohibited. As a result, the adoption
of current hybrids is low.
Certain critical strategy enhancements would
stand seed players in good stead. These include
product development for a wider product
portfolio and creation of an effective
distribution network to increase adoption.
Both these efforts would confer a stronger
competitive advantage for the longer term.
F
During the Green Revolution, chemical
fertilizers were credited with significantly
increasing wheat productivity by providing
effective and balanced crop nutrition. Today,
as stagnating agricultural productivity is
impairing growth in food production, it is
essential to take cues from the Green
Revolution to resolve this issue in order to
meet growing demand.
India’s estimated fertilizer consumption in
2011 was about 28 million tonnes, with the
figure expected to grow at about 8 to 10
percent per annum through FY 2015.
There is significant demand–supply gap,
resulting in low usage of fertilizers. Even
after nearly 65 years of Independence,
availability remains the biggest challenge,
impeding balanced and adequate use of
fertilizers in India.
The usage of fertilizers in India is highly
skewed in favor of nitrogen on account of
high usage of urea. The higher usage of
nitrogen–based fertilizers has led to the
depletion of other soil nutrients and has
impacted crop productivity.
 | I A — C F O
The reliance on imports has grown
considerably — at 24 percent CAGR. This is
the result of lack of raw material supplies
within the country for production. The new
subsidy scheme is only a step toward
improvement.
The country needs significant changes in
the fertilizer industry. Fertilizer companies
have long relied on subsidies to make profits.
However, given the receivables challenges
posed in any subsidy based model, it is
imperative for companies to look beyond
subsidies in order to build sustainable and
profitable business models.
Going forward, in the new pricing regime,
successful business models will be built on
two critical factors — cost optimization
through operating efficiencies, and effective
sales models based on reduced cost–to–serve.
P
The use of pesticides is essential in protecting
the crop from yield losses due to pest attacks,
weed growth and diseases. It is estimated that
approximately 40 percent of crop yield losses
occur due to pest attacks, weeds and diseases.
The Indian pesticide industry is still fledgling
compared to its potential as Indian farmers
use low amounts of pesticides as compared to
their peers in other countries. The use of
pesticides is restricted to few crops.Consequently,
the usage of pesticides is concentrated in the
states that sow these crops. As a result,
pesticides are a highly fragmented industry.
Research and development into GM seeds
present a significant challenge for pesticides
since GM seeds are resistant to key pests.
Research into hybrids is also focusing on
resistance to pests, in addition to yield
enhancement.
The emergence of bio–pesticides as an
alternative is also expected to impact the
growth of the pesticide industry. In the future,
factors like access to a wider production portfolio
and a bigger distribution network will be critical
to the industry’s success. While a wider product
portfolio is essential for better product lifecycle
management, since pests develop resistance to
specific pesticides over a period of time, a wider
distribution reach will ensure wider penetration
of pesticides across the country.
C
Most Indian farmers have limited resources
at their disposal and also have little or no
disposable income for re–investment in their
farms. Credit, therefore, is indispensable to
the farmer in meeting the crop–cycle
expenses. And the availability of credit is a
key factor that will drive adoption of all other
inputs. However, only a third of Indian
farmers presently have access to
institutional credit.
The disbursement of credit to farmers in FY
2011 stood at an estimated Rs. 3,750 billion.
Agricultural credit in India is marked by low
penetration and imbalances, based on the
types of farmers and type of credit.
Small and marginal farmers, who are in the
greatest need of credit, have the lowest
coverage within the farmer base. The
industry faces several challenges due to high
risk, high transaction costs and low end–use
monitoring.
Innovation in outreach and risk management
is essential to propel growth in rural credit, and
consequently, catalyze the adoption of quality
inputs in agriculture. Spreading the risks across
the system (such as by focusing on group
lending, instead of lending only to individual
farmers), expanding reach (through steps such
as appointing business correspondents), and
ensuring appropriate lending and usage (e.g.
through in–kind lending models) are critical to
break the sub–optimal credit cycle and drive
credit growth.
I
There are several risks associated with
agriculture that make farmers even more
financially vulnerable. Some of these risks,
such as weather, are beyond anyone’s control.
Therefore, insurance is a key input required to
help manage the fallout of these uncontrollable
risks in order to reduce the risk profile of the
farmer.
Insurance would also enable better access to
low–cost credit and catalyze the adoption of
other inputs. The penetration of insurance in
Indian agriculture is significantly low. But
there is tremendous potential for growth.
The gross premiums in agri–insurance
stood at about Rs. 7.5 billion in FY 2009 and
can grow to almost Rs. 63 billion by FY 2014,
if appropriate reforms are undertaken.
Indian products are designed as yield
insurance as opposed to weather–linked
insurance. Under yield insurance, farmers are
compensated based on yield shortages, as
opposed to occurrence of events–leading to
moral hazard among farmers.
Poor weather data impedes design of insurance
products often resulting in unviable pricing,
resulting in losses and burden on the exchequer.
Redesigning the existing products (by replacing
yield insurance with weather insurance) and
improving the pricing structure (moving
insurance products to market–linked rates) are
essential to ensure adoption of insurance.
I
A farmer’s decision to sow a particular crop or
use a particular input is based on the limited
information available to him. Access to quality
information can assist the farmer in taking
more informed and timely decisions. Similarly,
they can use timely information to improve
yield and realization.
There are three levers through which
information can impact farmers’ realization:
1. Richness and reach trade–off: Providing
customized guidance, while maximizing
the reach of such valuable information to
farmers.
2. Providing information at the right time,
especially with regard to precautions
against unforeseen events.
3. Actionable and relevant content, as well as
easy–to–use solutions.
It’s important to develop revenue models
beyond subscription revenues. Business
models need to be driven by identifying cross–
/ up–selling opportunities rather than those
based on charging significant amounts for
providing the information.
T B C G | 
 C 
A key barrier across all inputs, low usage/
adoption impacts not just the quality of the
produce but also the yield per acre and the
overall income generation for the farmer.
However, there is a significant cost of outreach
for distribution of these inputs. There is also
the challenge of appropriate and timely
advice on the usage of inputs. And that’s why
there exists a strong basis for a convergence
play in agricultural inputs.
Convergence in input distribution would
essentially entail expansion on the part of
any of the other three players in the value
chain, namely, input providers, distributors
and output buyers.
A business model for convergence, which
may be led by any of the afore–mentioned
trio, can create a win–win scenario for all the
stakeholders–the input providers, farmers,
and the end–consumer. Convergence in
inputs would also enable better understanding
of the needs of the farmers.
The opportunity to leverage existing networks
presents a rationale for distributors, whereas
the ability to influence output quality and
ensure consistent supply presents a rationale
for buyers.
The report identifies four specific convergence
business models–input provider as distributor,
input provider as end–buyer, distributor–led
model, and buyer–led model.
Farming
India has the world’s largest agricultural
land bank–at approximately 140 million
ha — which is next only to that of the United
States. However, India’s average land holding
is significantly lower, at only approximately
1.3 ha (compared to about 40 ha in the US).
Moreover, its productivity is also much lower
than that of its peers. This has serious
implications for a country that has nearly 10
percent of the world’s arable land but
supports almost 17 percent of the global
population.
This report identifies three key issues related
to farming in India:
 | I A — C F O
1. Choice of crop: A significant number of
farmers in India engage in subsistence
farming and do not grow crops that could
fetch them higher monetary gains. They
also rely on low–value crops like cereals.
2. Cropping patterns: Only 30 percent of land
is sown more than once. Farm realizations
improve significantly with increase in
cropping intensity.
3. Landholding: The average size of land
holdings has halved, from 2.3 ha in 1971 to
almost 1.3 ha by 2009. This limits the
farmers’ income as well as the availability
of funds, which in turn affect cropping
patterns and agri–practices.
The report has identified three levers that can
address the issues plaguing farming in India.
These are:
• Farmer aggregation: This is a crucial means
of addressing the issue of fragmented land
holdings, and can help facilitate technology
adoption, build scale and improve the
bargaining power of farmers. There are
multiple options available to aggregate
farmers. These include producer
cooperatives, producer companies and
public limited companies. Amongst these,
the producer companies offer greater
farmer control and higher flexibility. There
are strong incentives for both private
companies and the government to organize
producer companies.
• Technology adoption: Farming in India is
marked by low mechanization, primarily
due to fragmented landholdings that make
automation unviable. For instance, tractor
penetration in India stands at about 17 per
1,000 ha (compared to about 29 per 1,000
ha in the US).
• Better irrigation coverage: The steady
increase in irrigation coverage over the last
few decades notwithstanding, there is
substantial scope for improvement. There
are multiple approaches to increasing
irrigation coverage, such as building water
resources, implementing participatory
irrigation management and adopting micro
irrigation systems.
W 
Apart from approximately 140 million ha of
arable land, India has about 13 million ha of
culturable wasteland. If made culturable,
wastelands can substantially increase
agricultural production, generate rural
employment, and create centers of excellence.
Three states — Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Madhya
Pradesh — account for over 50 percent of these
culturable wastelands. The concentration of
such wastelands in three states should make it
easier to bring them under cultivation.
The government can generate interest amongst
private players through a long–term, lease–
based model with policy support, by way of
investment credit, tax exemptions and
permission for direct farm sourcing. The land
may be leased to both corporates and
individual farmers, and a limit could be
imposed on the usage of wastelands for non–
farm activities such as for setting up processing
units, roads, offices, etc.
Post–harvest Supply Chain
India’s post–harvest supply chain is
characterized by poor infrastructure,
inefficiencies and high level of wastages. The
estimated loss of agricultural produce due to
these factors is about Rs. 500 billion to Rs. 600
billion every year.
W 
India is faced with an acute shortage of
warehousing capacity. With increasing demand
for warehousing space, the shortfall is expected
to rise to about 70 million to 80 million MT by
2015.
The warehousing industry in India is
dominated by several unorganized players
with low capacities and poor deploying,
handling, stacking and monitoring facilities.
Lack of power and specialized transportation
to carry goods to and from warehouses leads
to increased operating costs, making a stand–
alone warehousing business economically
unviable for the warehousing company.
The report recommends a three–stage
expansion strategy for a new entrant in the
warehousing industry:
• Stage 1: Build a strong presence in a select
geography. A focused geographic approach
will help the entrant build partnerships
with banks and spot exchanges faster in
order to ensure better profitability through
allied services.
• Stage 2: Expand footprint and offerings.
The player should expand its footprint to
at least five to six states, and also leverage
its assets to forward integrate into logistics,
food processing, branding or retailing.
• Stage 3: Build a strong pan–India integrated
play. The player must also target corporate
customers and expand to other adjacent
industries.
The success of a warehousing business is
dependent on factors such as having multiple
revenue streams (through a bouquet of services
like collateral management, procurement,
testing, etc.); developing deep understanding
of the local ecosystem; getting into strategic
tie–ups to ensure better asset utilization; and
leveraging assets to exploit adjacent
synergies.
L 
India’s logistics industry is at an inflexion
point. Strong overall economic growth, coupled
with high growth in manufacturing, have
thrown up a plethora of opportunities for the
logistics sector which is currently pegged at
about Rs. 6,300 billion and growing at around
12 percent for the last five years.
Third Party Logistics (3PL) is a concept where
a single logistics provider manages end–to–
end logistics for a firm. Confined presently to
basic offerings, the 3PL industry in India is still
nascent, with an estimated market size of
around Rs. 40 billion to Rs. 50 billion. The
sector is expected to grow at between 15 to 25
percent in the next five years.
A focused agri–based logistics business
model will take time to evolve. Multiple
companies are trying to capture the 3PL
opportunity. Vendors like TCI and Safexpress,
with huge warehousing and logistics assets,
are attempting to enter the 3PL space in order
to ensure improved margins and better asset
utilization.
T B C G | 
 Food Processing, Branding and
Retailing
For an agrarian economy like India, food
processing is an important sector as it provides
a strong link between agriculture and the
end–consumer. Food processing is a Rs. 5,500
billion industry in India and has been
growing at the rate of 10 percent for the last
seven years.
At a global scale, food processing is a large
industry with high levels of processing. In
developed countries like the US, almost 60
percent of the food consumed is processed
food. Several companies like Dole and Cargill
have built large and profitable businesses in
food processing.
The level of processing in each food category
is very low in India, as compared to other
developed nations. India accounts for just
around 1.5 percent of the global processed
food trade. The Indian food processing
industry is highly fragmented, with 25
percent unorganized players, 42 percent
Small–Scale Industries (SSI), and 33 percent
organized players
The industry faces several challenges such
uncertainty related to availability, price and
quality of raw material, inadequate
infrastructure, preference for regional tastes,
etc.
At present, a large part of food processing
comprises primary processing of
commodities with limited value addition.
Most of these businesses are operating at
cost–plus basis with small margins. In order
to bolster margins, it is important to forward
or backward integrate businesses. Also, there
is a need to move toward secondary processing
with a unique value addition in order to
differentiate the product and to charge a
premium.
Profitability of value–added processing players
varies widely, depending on the level of
processing. Commodity players (like those
that produce F&Vs, mushrooms and herbs)
primarily focus on volumes with lower
margins, whereas value–added products like
edible oil and cereals attract higher margins,
but lower volumes.
 | I A — C F O
Many Indian players are making inroads to
tap the opportunity. Large players like ITC
have forayed into the processing of multiple
commodities such as spices, grains, coffee,
marine products. Players like Ruchi Soya have
built a large–scale, oil processing set–up with
complete backward integration.
Different food processing companies follow
different business models. The choice of value
chain segment plays a critical role in determining
the success of a food processing business. For
instance, ITC has invested heavily in setting up
e–chaupals for direct procurement of raw
material for its atta and spices business. ITC has
presence in different parts of the value chain.
Similarly, Pepsi is involved in contract farming
for potatoes to procure a particular quality
input for its chips. Through contract farming,
Pepsi is providing the required seeds, fertilizers
and other inputs to farmers so that it sources
the desired quality of produce.
Crop selection is the most important
criterion in deciding the level of forward or
backward integration. The success of a food
processing business is dependent on several
factors — proximity of the food processing
industry to raw material inputs; a low–cost
structure (especially in primary processing for
commodities, which is typically a low–margin,
high–volume game); differentiability of
finished products (specific and more value–
added products command premium); and
assured consumption centers (such as
downstream linkages to wholesale, retail or
export markets that assure revenue).
Synthesis and Implementation
India needs to focus more on agriculture and
agribusinesses in order to achieve inclusive
growth. Significant gains can be made by
removing the current inefficiencies that are
present in our agri–sector.
The report lays out a vision for the year 2020
for Indian agriculture. The sector needs to be
transformed by an era of robust growth that is
driven by:
• Strong growth in Indian yield levels, and
hence overall output: The increase in output
 should be as much as 30 to 40 percent for
cereals and fruits and vegetables, and 100
percent for meat, oilseeds and pulses.
• Greater share of commercial crops: Land
under commercial crops should rise to 35 to
40 percent from the current level of 32
percent, increasing share of high value crops.
• Higher food processing levels: Quantum
leap in the levels of processing (for example,
20 to 30 percent in fruits and vegetables, and
40 to 50 percent in dairy).
Currently, the agricultural yields in India are
woefully behind global levels due to poor crop
variety, lack of modern technology and farming
practices, as well as dearth of irrigation. There is
substantial potential to raise yields and output.
For instance, the scope to increase output is
approximately 20 to 30 percent in cereals and
over 100 percent in pulses and oilseeds.
Increase in yield will free up land, making it
available for high–value crops (such as
horticulture and cash crops like cotton and
tobacco). Today, 32 percent of the land is
available for cash crops. There is scope to
increase this to 35 to 36 percent. The
consequent increases in production of high–
value crops will supplement the existing
incomes of farmers.
V   
While the food processing industry in India is
far behind its global counterparts, this report
outlines a vision for it to go through a sea
change by 2020. This change will be
underpinned by:
• Higher government support
• Establishment of infrastructure
• Entry of private and organized players
• Greater demand for convenience foods
The step change in the agri–sector will be the
primary driver behind the growth of our agri–
GDP, which will expand at a sustained rate of
5 to 6 percent to reach about Rs.17,000 billion
in size by 2020. This would also have a spillover
effect on the entire agri–business industry,
which will contribute about Rs. 36,000 billion
to the overall GDP by the end of this decade
and help India register an economic growth
rate of about 8 percent by 2020.
G    
  
Political will and cooperation have been a
critical component of all agricultural
‘revolutions’, and will play a key role even
now, in order to bring about the next revolution.
Here are some imperatives for the
government.
Liberalize procurement for standardization;
allow free interstate movement of agri–
commodities: There is an urgent need to
standardize and ensure the implementation of
the Agricultural Produce Market Committees
(APMC) Act. The Essential Commodities Act
should also be scrapped to allow free interstate
movement of commodities.
Reform Minimum Support Price (MSP) norms
to provide fair remunerative incomes.
Procurement at MSP should be done only
when prices go below the MSP. Also, quantities
enough for buffer stocks and social schemes
should be procured–and that too, at market
prices. A fair and remunerative price will
encourage farmers to shift to pulses and also
invest in irrigation.
Redesign subsidies to ensure sustainable use
of inputs: The current subsidy schemes
encourage indiscriminate use of inputs like
power, water and fertilizers. These could be
redesigned to encourage judicious usage
without impacting productivity or costs.
Link agri–credit to crop insurance to manage
default risks: Cost–effective and efficient
insurance schemes can encourage banks to
provide credit which allows farmers to invest in
farm productivity, thereby creating a virtuous
cycle. Reforms are also required in agriculture
lending practices to ensure that small and
marginal farmers have access to credit.
Promote edible oil production: India imports
approximately 50 percent of its edible oil
requirements, with palm oil constituting the
majority (about 80 percent). With stagnating
oilseed production, the deficit (in edible oil)
T B C G | 
 is likely to be met by palm oil, which in turn
will result in a burgeoning import bill.
Therefore, the government needs to take the
following steps:
• Provide plantation crop status to palm oil:
This will allow private players to make the
required investments in irrigation and
processing infrastructure, thereby
increasing yields.
• Encourage extraction of edible oil from
non–edible sources such as rice bran.
Launch a National Awareness program to
promote best practices: A cohesive national
awareness drive involving research institutions,
state administration and the private sector is
required to increase awareness of best
practices in farming. Practices like Systems of
Rice Intensification (SRI) have already
delivered a 20 to 50 percent increase in yields,
and should be encouraged.
Promote land aggregation measures:
Fragmented land holdings in India are an
impediment to agricultural extension. This
can be overcome through land aggregation via
lease–based models that zealously safeguard
the land ownership rights of farmers. The
government must also take steps to encourage
contract farming and producer companies.
Moreover, wasteland development should be
used to pilot commercial farming (more than
500 ha) in order to leverage India’s cultivable
wasteland. Towards this, business models with
greater farmer participation are likely to be
more successful.
Promote R&D investments in hybrids and
develop a process for GM seeds: The
government needs to focus on local
development of hybrids suited for Indian
conditions, by setting up a dedicated fund to
promote R&D and by introducing R&D cost
subsidies to encourage private participation
in the process. A world–class safety standard
and approval process should also be put in
place to fairly test GM seeds.
I    :
Private players have as much a role to play to
ensure growth in the agri–sector as the
government. Outlined below are some
 | I A — C F O
initiatives that the private sector needs to
take:
Develop innovative models such as those
based on convergence of agri–inputs: Large
white spaces exist across the agriculture value
chain. Therefore, business model innovations
will play a key role in bringing about the next
revolution in agriculture.
Customize and transfer best–in–class practices
from other nations: Relatively smaller
countries like Egypt and Israel have developed
agri–practices that have enabled them to
enjoy world–class yields in many crops. India
has a lot to learn from other countries and the
private sector can play an important role in
customizing and transferring such best–in–
class practices to India.
Undertake joint R&D with government bodies:
Private players would do well to seek out
opportunities for joint efforts with state
agricultural universities and research
institutes.
Public Private Partnership model: Both the
government and the private sector can join
hands to provide the much needed growth
platform to Indian agriculture. This can be
done through the following PPPs:
• Agri–parks: Establishing agri–parks through
PPPs could stimulate agricultural
productivity and address key inefficiencies.
The government should focus on ensuring
the availability of critical inputs and access
to information and best practices in these
agri–parks. The private sector would make
investments in storage, processing
infrastructure and provide forward
marketing linkages (for example, exports). It
is important to note that agri–parks would
not result in transfer of land ownership.
• Agrizones: These will be geographically
demarcated zones comprising key producer
states of a certain crop. Such zones will have
two objectives: (a) Improving production by
offering an enabling infrastructure,
agricultural extension, and focused R&D
support; and (b) Addressing market failures
by enabling private investments and
improving the regulatory framework.
I  conclusion, the extent of food shortages
projected in 2020, mass social unrest,
spiralling inflation and burgeoning imports
pose a very real threat to the economy.
However with some changes, Agribusinesses
could become a strong growth engine for the
Indian economy. Majority of the changes
required to avert this situation are institutional
in nature and will not happen overnight.
Through the adoption of new and emerging
business models in almost each element of
the agribusiness landscape, stronger
partnerships across the value chain as well as
use of technologies, India will be much better
placed in terms of the capabilities required to
change its course. This report should thus be
viewed as a call for action to all stakeholders.
Agribusinesses represent a unique business
opportunity and should become a priority
focus area for them over the next decade.
T B C G | 
NEED FOR AGRICULTURAL
REFORMS
India and Agriculture
Agriculture has played a critical role in the
Indian economy and society for thousands of
years. We can find evidence of its importance
even in 3000 BC, during the Indus Valley
Civilization, when sophisticated irrigation and
water storage structures were built. The
Kallanai, an ancient dam built on the Kaveri
River, around the first century AD, is considered
the oldest in–use water regulating structure in
the world.
In fact, agriculture is deeply ingrained in the
Indian cultural ethos. Several rituals and
festivals, and many beliefs and traditions
revolve around agriculture and farming
patterns. For centuries, India has been known
for its variety of food and non–food produce
that ranges from wheat, rice, pulses, fresh
fruits, vegetables, spices, oilseeds and tea to
rubber, tobacco, coconut, and cashews.
Since medieval times, agriculture has remained
the predominant occupation of the populace.
It satisfied a village’s food requirements,
besides providing raw materials for industries
like textile, food processing, and crafts.
During the late middle ages, till the start of
colonial rule, construction of water works and
improvement in irrigation techniques brought
about economic growth. The colonial era was
not particularly good for agriculture. It saw
frequent famines. The growth rate in food
 | I A — C F O
production during 1900 to 1947 was hardly 0.1
percent per annum. The country gained
Independence a few years after the Great
Bengal Famine (1942 to 1943), so the
agricultural scenario, post–Independence, was
quite challenging.
Decades after Independence, agriculture has
remained the mainstay of the Indian economy.
Post–Independence, the government launched
special programs to improve the supply of both
food and cash crops. The Grow More Food
Campaign (1940s) and the Integrated Production
Program (1950s) focused on the supply of food
and cash crops, respectively. These initiatives
were followed by five–year plans that focused
on agricultural development.
The agricultural history of India, post–
Independence, can be divided into four phases:
1947 to 1964, 1965 to 1985, 1985 to 2000, and
2000 till date.
During the first phase, emphasis was on the
development of infrastructure for scientific
agriculture. Major developments during this
period included the establishment of fertilizer
and pesticide factories, and construction of large
multipurpose irrigation–cum–power projects.
During this period, India’s population grew at
the rate of over 3 percent per annum. The growth
in food production was inadequate to meet the
consumption needs of the growing population
and food imports became essential. The food
situation in India during the mid–1960s had
become precarious. About 10 million tonnes of
wheat was imported annually — against a
production of 12 million tonnes — from the
United States. William and Paul Paddock, in
their book Famine 1975, predicted a famine in
India in 1975 that would wipe out millions.
India responded to the challenge by
reorganizing research and undertaking
agricultural activities on a large scale (by
setting up of over a thousand demonstration
farms). This second phase saw the creation of
institutions to provide farmers with assured
marketing opportunities and remunerative
prices for their produce. All these steps led to a
quantum jump in the productivity of crops
such as wheat and rice, a phenomenon
christened the Green Revolution in 1968.
The Green Revolution generated a sense of
self–confidence in India’s agricultural
capability. The country’s food grain production
had steadily increased by 1975, and the famine
(predicted by the Paddock Brothers) never
occurred. It was the political will and execution
that enabled this transformation. The efforts
continue to bear fruit today (see Exhibit 1.1).
E . | Snapshots of progress in Indian agriculture
Green Revolution created sufficiency in
food grains
 
To put the progress since 1950 in perspective
— food grain production has increased four
times; horticulture1, and oilseed and milk
production is up six times.
The third phase (1986 to 2000) was characterized
by greater emphasis on the production of
pulses and oilseeds, and of vegetables, fruits,
and milk. Organizational initiatives like
Technology Missions were introduced, resulting
in a rapid rise in oilseed production. Rain–fed
areas and wastelands received greater
attention. This period ended with large grain
reserves with the government, and the media
highlighting the co–existence of “grain
mountains and hungry millions”. This phase
also witnessed a gradual decline in public
investment in irrigation and infrastructure,
essential for agricultural progress, as well as a
gradual decline of the cooperative credit
system.
The fourth and current phase (2000 till date)
has been a challenging one for the Indian
agricultural sector. This period has seen a
virtual stagnation in food grain production.
The average productivity of wheat and rice has
grown at less than one percent per annum.
Operation Flood gave India a pole
position in milk
  


 

               
 

 $
  
 

 
  

$ $


$
   
    
   $ 

 
 

 $
   
              

            ! " #

Resulted in ~4x growth in production and India world’s largest milk producer, availability
productivity of food grains close to global average (~280 grams)

Sources: Ministry of Water Resources, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture.

T B C G | 

 From farmers’ perspective, the situation is
even more challenging — forty percent of the
farmers would quit farming, given an
alternative2.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of
agriculture in India. After sixty five years of
Independence, India continues to be a large
agrarian economy, with a majority of the
population still dependent on it for their
livelihood. Despite liberalization, and the
growth in services and manufacturing, the role
of agriculture remains vital to the overall
development and well–being of the nation.
Accounting for a little over 15 percent of gross
domestic product, and employing the largest
proportion of the workforce (about 45.5
percent according to a recent survey3 by the
Labour Bureau), agriculture remains a strong
lever of growth for the Indian economy.
The Need for Immediate Action
India has failed to sustain the momentum
generated in the early years after Independence.
The period post–2001 has been “characterized
by policy fatigue, resulting in technology extension
and production fatigues”4. The growth in
production of principal crops has declined over
the past — from 3.2 percent per annum over
1980 to 1989 to 1.8 percent per annum over
2000 to 2009. Compared to global peers, India’s
productivity across crops is low. This has stoked
food price inflation.
Food Security: The World Food Summit of 1996
defined food security as existing “when all people
at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious
food to maintain a healthy and active life”.
India is the second most populous nation in
the world. From approximately 1.2 billion
people today, India’s population is expected to
grow to nearly 1.3 billion by 2020. Ensuring
food security becomes a challenging task,
especially with increased nutritional intake,
greater urbanization, and stagnant (or
declining) cultivable area.
With stagnating production and increasing
demand, guaranteeing food security will
become challenging. Our estimates suggest
that India could face an acute food shortage of
 | I A — C F O
almost 50 million tonnes by 2020 (see Exhibit
1.2), assuming no change in the trajectory of
food production. Oilseeds and pulses would be
the worst hit with a supply deficit of 67 percent
and 55 percent, respectively. The deficit in rice
and wheat is expected to be lesser (unless
compensated for by increases in imports, or a
significant improvement in production levels).
To bridge this deficit, India will need to import
food worth about Rs. 4,500 billion — nearly 2
percent of India’s estimated GDP in 2020. Food
price inflation, already a worry for policy
makers, could inflict more damage. Stagnating
rural incomes will also create externalities,
including migration to urban centers for
employment. This will further strain the
already–under–stress urban infrastructure.
Finally, the widening income disparity between
the non–agrarian and agrarian segments could
cause social unrest. Status quo in agriculture is
definitely not an option.
A
Agribusiness is currently the single largest sector
in India, worth nearly Rs. 17,000 billion, nearly
60 percent larger than the next largest industry
— financial services (see Exhibit 1.3). With
economic development, India needs to focus
more on agribusiness — a generic term for the
various businesses involved in food production,
including farming and contract farming, seed
supply, agrichemicals, farm machinery and
equipment, wholesale and distribution,
processing, marketing, and retail sales. In the
future, agribusiness will have a much larger role
to play in the growth of this sector.
Agribusinesses are estimated to contribute
approximately 25 percent to India’s GDP, with
the manufacturing and trade components.
Agribusiness has grown steadily in the last few
years and is expected to sustain the pace over
the next five years. The agribusiness segment
is expected to nearly double by 2020, driven by
growth in per capita consumption and changes
in consumer preferences toward value–added
and processed foods.
Globally, agribusinesses are much larger than
agriculture. For instance, the ratio of
agribusiness to agriculture segments in the
United States and Brazil is approximately ten,
and four, respectively. The corresponding ratio
E . | Food crisis in Indian agriculture

 
        
     
    !
 
 
400 5,000
–50 310 4,470
332 520
30
283 4,000 1,140
300 35 10 Oilseeds
16 Pulses
41
59 Other 3,000
cereals 2,500
200
109 86 Wheat 2,000

100
1,000
117 112 Rice

0 0
Demand Supply Oils Pulses Wheat Rice Total
imports

Sources: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, SEA of India, EIU, BCG analysis.
Note: Demand projected assuming increase in per capita consumption at historic rate. Value of imports calculated assuming import price inflation of 10%;
value of imports could increase if inflation levels reach those between 2007 and 2010 (CAGR ~15%).

E . | Estimated size of agribusiness by 2020

2
Economy
(Rs. billion)

3



2 Economic
growth
 

Agribusiness
growth

1
Agribusiness   

(Rs. billion)
 Agri–GDP
1 (Rs. billion)

Agriculture  
 growth 


  
  

Sources: Datamonitor Agricultural products in India, India Brand Equity Foundation, World Economic forum, NCAER, RBI database on Indian economy,
BCG analysis.
Note: Fixed exchange rate of Rs. 45 to 1 US$ taken.
1
Does not include non–food cash crops such as jute, cotton, tobacco; includes only food crops — cereals, pulses, oilseeds, F&V, sugar, tea, coffee etc.
2
Assuming industry and services grow along historical growth rates of 9% and 10% respectively (observed over 2005–10 period).

T B C G | 

 for India is estimated at approximately two.
Thus, a strong agricultural production base is
the bedrock for growth of agribusinesses,
which can then contribute significantly more
to the economy. While India’s production of
key commodities is high, the marketable
surpluses are low. For instance, the proportion
of wheat, rice, and milk marketed is
approximately 60 percent, 75 percent, and 50
percent, respectively, primarily due to the high
prevalence of subsistence farming. This limits
the potential of agribusiness, and brings into
sharper focus the need to address productivity
issues and inefficiencies.
Indian agribusiness has been growing at the
rate of 10 percent per annum over the last five
years, reaching Rs. 17,000 billion currently.
However, it has the potential to become a
Rs. 36,000 billion segment by 2020, thereby
paving the way for a ‘New Revolution’. In
addition to economic growth, agribusinesses
like food processing will also create rural
employment and stem urban migration.
Need for a New Revolution
There is an urgent need to relook at agriculture
in India, both from an opportunity, as well as a
threat perspective. Current productivity levels
in India are significantly lower compared with
global standards. For instance, Indian farmers
on an average produce 2.9 tonnes of rice per
hectare, lower than the global average of 4
tonnes — and significantly lower than the 10
tonnes produced by their peers in Egypt.
Similarly, for oilseeds, India’s average per
hectare yield of 1 tonne pales in comparison
with the global average of 1.6 tonnes pales
(with Germany enjoying a superior yield of 3.7
tonnes pales).
There are several factors behind this low
productivity, ranging from poor agriculture
infrastructure and post–harvest supply chain
to poor agricultural practices, lack of
appropriate finance, poor use of resources,
highly fragmented landholdings, etc.
Comparisons with other countries underscore
the fact that there is ample scope for
improvements in productivity.
There is an imminent need to establish an
ecosystem conducive to the rapid growth of
 | I A — C F O
Indian agriculture. While acknowledging
previous efforts such as the Green Revolution
and Operation Flood that were intended to
revolutionize Indian agriculture, it must be
noted that those revolutions focused on a single
crop and on a specific region. The focus now
needs to shift toward holistic and sustainable
growth of agriculture. This is a daunting task,
given the complexity of dealing with multiple
crops, sustainability issues, complex value
chains, and the need to accommodate legacy
issues. Today, however, India has a robust and
resourceful private sector. Collaborative efforts
with the private sector and political will can
address this challenge.
Clearly, the time to act is now. If the country
doesn’t take the right steps to bring about a
‘New Revolution’ in agriculture, it may face on
one hand, the threat of inadequate food
availability, and on the other, miss the
opportunity to leverage the potential for
agribusiness. In order to mitigate this risk, the
country would have to rely on imports and
spend precious foreign exchange (amounting
to nearly 2 percent of GDP).
One of the challenges in this New Revolution
is to set out an appropriate baseline upon
which improvements may be carried out and
measured. Apart from seeking to provide that
baseline, this report analyzes issues and
solutions across the agriculture landscape, with
a special emphasis on ‘getting it done’. There is
ample scope for converting agriculture into an
opportunity. India has one–tenth of the world’s
arable land — at 140 million hectares5 — more
than that belonging to China and second only
to the United States. With the advent of the
Green Revolution, India attained food self–
sufficiency, followed by a growing stock of
surplus food grains by the mid–1970s. The
Green Revolution preceded the White
Revolution, Yellow Revolution, and then the
Blue Revolution, which led to an increase in
the output of milk, oilseeds, and fish and fish
products, respectively. In other words, the task
is achievable.
Alongside the challenges in agriculture, India
also needs to focus on agribusiness. This will
not only help in employment generation but
also in the creation of small businesses. A
greater focus on agribusiness will also ensure
that the benefits of high growth in the
manufacturing and services sectors trickle
down at a much faster pace to agriculture.
Purpose and Coverage of the
Report
The purpose of this report is to bring together
various issues and challenges across agricultural
products and value chains, and to highlight
opportunities for agricultural businesses in
India. This report aims to build on top of other
efforts in the past, to resolve issues in Indian
agriculture. It aims not to be the last word on
the potential solutions to these issues, but to
trigger a meaningful discussion about them.
Our report begins with an analysis of key
agricultural products such as fruits and
vegetables, food grains, and dairy, which
constitute the bulk of Indian agricultural sector
in value terms. The value chain of each of these
products is analyzed in detail to understand
issues / challenges, and identify the underlying
business opportunities. Following this is an in–
depth discussion on each of the value chain
elements of agriculture — inputs, farming or
production, post–harvest, food processing and
retailing — and the issues there in. We have
also highlighted several inherent opportunities
within each part of these value chains. Finally,
as implementation has been a major roadblock
in the past, we identify models for the corporate
sector and the government to overcome these
hurdles.
We have also highlighted global success stories
across the report. While these case studies may
not be uniformly implementable in India, they
demonstrate the potential impact of business
model innovations in the agricultural space.
NOTE:
1. Primarily fruits and vegetables.
2. http://www.hinduonnet.com/af/india60/stories/
2007081550320900.htm
3. Employment and Unemployment Survey (2009–10),
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of
India.
4. “The Crisis of Indian Agriculture”, M. S. Swaminathan,
The Hindu, August 15, 2007.
5. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
T B C G | 
PRODUCT LANDSCAPE
S    
stakeholders to participate in a range of
agricultural products. We believe that the scale
of the opportunity will render this to be
beneficial not only for the Indian consumer,
but also for corporate entities as well as
governments. Availing these opportunities
requires a deeper understanding of the value
chain of each of these products, and diagnosing
the inefficiencies that lie within them.
Introduction
The Indian agriculture industry can be
classified into four major product groups —
food grains, fruits and vegetables, dairy, and
meat. These product groups together account
for approximately 85 percent of private final
consumption expenditure on food (see Exhibit
2.1).
Within these segments, the biggest share is
that of food grains, followed by fruits and
vegetables, dairy, and the meat and poultry
segment. Each of these product categories is
quite distinct, with different value chains
applicable to each of them. This chapter
analyzes the value chain applicable to each
product group to understand the nature of
related challenges and opportunities. This
chapter also analyzes the successful business
models existing under each of these product
categories within India, and globally. Each
product category is presented as a sub–section
 | I A — C F O
within this chapter. Within each category, a
detailed analysis is performed based on the
following parameters:
1. Industry landscape: To understand the
characteristics of the market, in terms of
size, players, and product sub–segments,
and track the key consumption and supply
patterns.
2. Opportunity: To identify the growth drivers
and the future size of the market.
3. Key challenges / imperatives: To identify
potential challenges, so that both policy
makers and private players realize the full
potential of the opportunity.
Food Grains Market in India
I 
Being a large and populous country, India
presents a significant business opportunity in
cereals and pulses — a category that forms a
major portion of domestic food consumption.
The country’s cereals market is worth
approximately Rs. 3,000 billion, and has been
growing at an annualized rate of 3 percent for
the last five years (see Exhibit 2.2). Among
cereals,rice and wheat account for approximately
85 to 90 percent of the overall market, both in
terms of value and volume. Since the advent of
the Green Revolution, India has achieved food
sufficiency in cereals with negligible imports.
E . | PFCE break up for food categories 2009–10

Private final consumption expenditure — 2009–2010 (food category)

 
12,000 2,000 11,500

500
1,600
9,000
3,100

6,000
4,300

3,000

0
Food grains– Fruits and Dairy Meat Other food Total
cereals, pulses, vegetables categories
oils and oilseeds

Sources: CSO, MOSPI and GOI.

E . | Cereals market landscape in India

Rice and wheat most consumed cereals Consumption of corn, wheat and rice
— both in volume and value terms growing at a steady rate
203 Rs. 2,845
million tonnes billion Growth volume Growth value
%
100 0.5% 3.3% 
0.4%
3.2% 3.2% Barley Barley 0.8% 11.6%
8.2% 6.1%
(Rs. 10.7 bn) 1
80 Sorghum 0.0% 0.0% 13.2%
Sorghum
33.1% (Rs. 85.0 bn) 2
Millet 0.7% 0.7% 15.5%
39.8% Millet
60 (Rs. 90.3 bn) 3
Corn 4.6% 10.0%
8.2% Corn
2.2% (Rs. 172.7 bn) Wheat 3.3% 12.2%
40
Wheat
(Rs. 941.9 bn) Basmati rice 3.2% 20.9%
42.7% 46.1% Basmati rice
20 Non–basmati rice 2.8% 15.9%
(Rs. 232.9 bn)
Non–basmati rice Overall 2.9% 13.5%
(Rs. 1,311.9 bn)
0
Volume Value 0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30
2009–10 5 year CAGR % 5 year CAGR %

Domestic production satisfies consumption requirements; ~0.01% is imported

Sources: indiaagristat.com, FAO, USDA FAS (PSD online), Way2Health Indian Food Processing Industry Report.
1
Sorghum = Jowar.
2
Millet = Bajra & Ragi.
3
Corn = Maize.

T B C G | 

 India is one of the world’s major consumers of
pulses, with a variety of pulses representing a
primary source of protein for the bulk of the
domestic population. The pulses market in India
is estimated to be worth approximately Rs. 550
billion, growing at an annualized rate of 4
percent for the last five years. As illustrated in
Exhibit 2.3, Bengal gram and tur are the most
consumed pulses, growing at the rate of 8 percent
and 1 percent, respectively, for last five years.
Although peas and beans currently account for
only 15 percent of the overall consumption of
pulses, their share has been growing at the rate
of 20 percent for the last five years. The supply
of peas and beans has not been able to keep up
with the steep increase in demand, leading to
heavy imports. Almost 99 percent of the peas
and beans consumed in India are imported, and
account for approximately 60 percent of the
total import of pulses.
O   
There are four key dimensions where
opportunities exist in the food grains space.
The magnitude of the opportunity along each
dimension varies for different food grains.
E . | Pulses market landscape in India
Bengal gram and Tur most consumed pulses and growing — both in volume and value terms
% )&  
%
& '(&'  (volume)

1. Value chain reorganization: In the food
grains space, multiple intermediaries exist
between the farm gate and the end–
consumer. Primarily, inefficiencies on
account of a large number of intermediaries
in the value chain result in retail price
escalations. This can be as high as 18 to 22
percent1 of the retail price for some food
grains.
2. Post–harvest management: This relates to
opportunities in reducing wastages through
improved storage and integrated pest
management. Some pulses have up to 10
percent wastage on account of poor post–
harvest management.
3. Branding of food grains: Opportunities
pertaining to branding of all food grains
need to be explored. Some food grains are
more suitable for branding, as they have
significant scope for differentiation.
4. Processed foods branding: India currently
has low levels of processing, compared with
global peers. Therefore, opportunities for
5–year CAGR

   

 )&' !*# &( !(+*# !  " 
  " *
 
#


&' !*# & !+*#    *
 & !(*#
)& !*#    *
& !*#
&( !*# &) !*#      *
 &( !*# +& !*#     *
(& !*#     *
& !*#
)& !(*# 


$ $
2009–10

Sources: indiaagristat.com, FAO, USDA FAS (PSD online).

Note: Others: 95% of others includes Khesari which is low quality pulse mixed with Masoor and Tur as an adulterant.

 | I A — C F O

 branding / retailing of secondary / tertiary
processed products are significant.
Value chain reorganization
Farmers typically receive 40 to 50 percent of
the consumer price, across most food grains.
The value chain from the farm–gate to the
consumer in India includes multiple players,
resulting in price escalation along the value
chain. The regulatory framework outlined by
the Agricultural Produce Market Committee
(APMC) mandates the presence of an
intermediary agency like the mandi (a
government–designated market yard for
trading of specific agricultural commodities),
which entail its own set of commissions and
fees. While some players perform necessary
functions like milling, processing, storage,
transport, etc., there is significant potential to
generate savings through disintermediation.
Rice dominated food grains with a production
of approximately 100 million Metric Tonnes
(MT) in 2010, and an estimated value of
approximately Rs. 1,500 billion (based on the
marketed quantity). An analysis of the paddy
value chain revealed the potential for about 2
to 3 percent savings on value through
disintermediation (see Exhibit 2.4).
Amongst pulses, a similar pattern was observed
on the value chain of urad dal. The value of the
marketed quantity of urad dal was estimated at
approximately Rs. 19 billion in 2010 and the
analysis revealed potential for savings on value
of up to approximately 11 percent (nearly Rs.
6.6 billion) through direct procurement from
the farmer (see Exhibit 2.5).
Post–harvest management
Post–harvest management includes multiple
functions that are undertaken once the crop has
been harvested, including threshing, storage,
processing, transport, etc. An evaluation of post–
harvest practices followed in select crops
revealed significant savings potential. Post–
harvest inefficiencies in Bengal gram and tur are
estimated to be about 10 percent (see Exhibit
2.6), while corresponding figures for other pulses
like masoor and moong stands at almost 2 to 3
percent. Similar losses in paddy and wheat have
been estimated at approximately 4 to 5 percent,

E . | Potential for savings through disintermediation and supply chain control in Paddy

Example: Improving efficiencies by disintermediation and controlling the

supply–chain for rice can provide ~2.5% reduction in value Illustrative

% of retail price  




, 

 

 

 


  ( )&& ' * + *& ( )&& ' $%! #
!( & ++   &  
 
Activities in paddy – rice value chain
 
           !   "   

Sources: BCG analysis, market intelligence.

1
Assuming only 25% of the savings will accrue, due to investment costs.
2
Assuming a 5% savings on the individual costs.

T B C G | 

 E . | Potential for savings through disintermediation in Urad

 
    

Cost break–up



 


#






 






   " "" !      
 


$%%&      & % "& ( * ( 

$%%&  ' (""    '"  & ' (( )" %

Source: Trade interviews.

1
Not all of the cost savings will accrue due to new costs of direct procurement etc.

E . | Wastages on account of poor post harvest management in Bengal Gram and Tur

~10% losses in Bengal gram and Tur Opportunity to reduce losses

due to post–harvest inefficiencies at each step

  A Untimely harvest and manual methods of

10 threshing
0.5%  Modern methods of threshing and
1.0% winnowing
8
B Traditional storage structures used by
manufacturers — ~5% loss due to insect
6
5.0% Wastage due attack
to insects 9.5%  Integrated pest control during storage
4  Proper techniques in storage

C Outdated processing units

2 2.5%  Invest in modern processing units
0.5%  Grading at the processing unit to create
value addition
0
Threshing Storage Processing Transport Total D Loading / unloading wastages
 Proper primary (gunny bags)
A B C D  Proper care in handling — for example
no use of hooks

Grading according to commercial type of the product will help in creating a differentiating value

Source: www. agrimarket.nic.in.

 | I A — C F O

most of which occur within the farm itself. The
cumulative losses from paddy, wheat, and pulses
were estimated to be worth about Rs. 100 billion
in 2010.
There exists an opportunity to reduce losses
across each function of the value chain:
• Threshing: Switching from manual
methods of threshing and winnowing to
modern practices can help reduce loss in
yield.
• Storage: An improvement in storage
quality and integrated pest management
can help minimize losses (approximately
1 to 5 percent of food grains are currently
wasted due to pest attacks).
• Processing: Modernization of processing
units, and sorting / grading of grains prior
to processing will improve output value.
• Handling in transport: Usage of proper
gunny bags and proper handling (such as
not using hooks for loading / unloading)
can help reduce losses to a large extent.
Branding of food grains
Many players have forayed into branding of
food grains or secondary processed products
(like wheat flour). The market for branded rice
is estimated to be worth approximately Rs. 33
billion (about 4 percent of raw rice market)
and is dominated by Basmati rice. The branded
wheat flour market — estimated at
approximately Rs. 21 billion — includes
established players like ITC, Hindustan
Unilever and Godrej–Pillsbury. The market for
branded pulses is relatively under–developed,
but offers significant potential since unbranded
pulses have many quality issues like
adulteration, use of low quality oil during
milling, and artificial colors, lack of grading,
etc. There is also significant potential for
product differentiation — based on the health
plank — through fortification of pulses. Some
companies (see sidebar) have forayed into the
market and also cater to institutional demand.
Processed foods branding
Both retail consumers and institutional buyers
consume multiple processed variants of food
grains. For instance, bread flour, baked foods
flour, semolina (suji), pasta flour, fortified flours,

SNAPSHOT OF ILLUSTRATIVE PLAYERS IN THE BRANDED PULSES

SEGMENT
Tirupati Food Industries Private Ltd., is a Delhi– purification to guarantee supply of high quality pulses.
based company with an annual production of 60,000 The company’s in–house testing division is equipped
tonnes of pulses and allied products (worth Rs. 2.25 with the latest machinery to apply the best of quality
billion). The company is primarily involved in processing, testing measures.
importing, trading, and supply of well–processed pulses
and dals of various grades. The company’s product • Timely delivery: The company has maintained an
portfolio includes sugar and all superior quality pulses impeccable supply chain across various strategic
like moong dal, channa dal, masoor dal, urad dal, tur dal, locations in India to ensure timely delivery of goods
moth dhowa, kabuli channa, rajma, and lobhia. It is a key to its customers.
supplier to several corporations such as Haldiram’s,
PepsiCo, Balaji, and Crax, as well as retail chains like
Bharti Walmart, Aditya Birla Retail Ltd., and several
pulse traders in the unorganized sector. The company
imports premium quality pulses from China, Myanmar,
and Australia. The key source of competitive advantage
for Tirupati Food is its quality assurance and timely
delivery.

• Quality assurance: An ISO 22000:2005 (HACCP)

certified company, Tirupati Food uses highly
sophisticated equipment for processing and

T B C G | 

 refined flour (maida), and gluten are some of
the processed variants of wheat. Gluten has
largely been a business–to–business market,
while refined flour is sold in business–to–
business as well as business–to–consumer.
The market for processed foods branding is
large, as shown in the exhibits below. For
example, the estimated market for rice, wheat,
and Bengal gram products is Rs. 1,400 billion to
Rs. 1,650 billion (see Exhibit 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9).
K   
High operational complexity due to wide
regional preferences
India has a wide range of regional preferences
for food. Within rice, there are ten different
kinds of rice with strong regional preference.
For example, in Andhra Pradesh, sona masuri
rice is widely eaten, whereas in Madhya
Pradesh, kolam rice, and in Gujarat, surti kolam
rice is preferred. These regional preferences
add to the operational complexity in terms of
distribution, inventory management, etc. In
the case of rice, the complexity is still limited
as most consumption centers are closer to the
production centers. For pulses, the operational
E . | Market for rice–based processed products
Sources: Corn crop profile on agmarket.nic.in, BCG analysis.
 | I A — C F O
challenge is greater as the overlap between
production and consumption centers is limited
and varies across different pulses (see Exhibit
2.10). For example, in the case of moong pulse,
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
are major production states, while it is being
consumed mainly in Punjab, Haryana, and
Himachal Pradesh.
Commodity price volatility
Price volatility associated with commodities
adds to the operational complexities for
businesses — particularly in case of pulses
(compared with cereals), as highlighted in
Exhibit 2.11. In 2010, prices of pulses almost
doubled and also witnessed major volatility.
S     
 
Many players have ventured successfully into
food grains and have been able to build scale.
Their business models reveal four key strategic
choices that determine the suitability of a play
in a particular food grain or processed product.
• Segment focus: A key decision lever is
whether to focus on retail and / or
E . | Market for wheat–based processed products

Sources: Wheat crop profile on agmarket.nic.in, Rabobank report, BCG analysis.

E . | Market for Bengal–gram based processed products (limited tertiary processing of other
pulses)

Sources: Corn crop profile on agmarket.nic.in, BCG analysis.

Note: Primary processing: primary processing activities consist of production of cleaned, graded, packaged pulses; Secondary processing: under secondary
processing activities such as dehusking, splitting, polishing, turmeric / spices / salt coating and making powdered besan and packaged dal are done; Tertiary
processing: these activities mostly consist of preparation of roasted, fried dal and other associated dal products.

T B C G | 

 E . | Production and consumption centres for various pulses

Sources: Area of production from agmart.nic.in and patterns of consumption based on real consumption data 2008–09 NFS data.

 | I A — C F O

 E . | Price volatility in cereals and pulses

Cereals tend to be stably priced — matching High volatility over the long term
the primary articles index in prices of pulses

 
 
    
 
     
   %$ 
 
 
!
 
%
 


  

"
 

#

$  $
Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI).
institutional (business–to–business, exports,
private label, etc.), users. Based on the
focus, the procurement, processing and
distribution requirements, and brand
investments will also vary significantly.
• Scope to differentiate: The scope to
differentiate varies significantly across
food grains and processed products.
Typically, as the level of processing
increases, so does the scope to differentiate.
That explains the limited success in
branding / retailing of primary / secondary
processed food grains (except in the case
of organic foods or Basmati rice which is a
premium variant). There have been
attempts to differentiate through
fortification, but the benefit of such value
addition also needs to be communicated
effectively to the customer.
• Operating model preferences: As discussed
earlier, there is a significant potential for
cost savings across the value chain.
However, based on the preferred operating
model (asset heavy versus asset light), the
profitability of products may vary
$
$
 
significantly. More integrated business
models are able to drive greater efficiencies
but also become vulnerable to high
demand fluctuations. It would be
beneficial to analyze the additional gains
from such savings vis–à–vis the required
investments.
• Brand investment appetite: The level of
investments broadly varies across two types
of end–users — retail and institutional.
However, there is also a continuum based
on the products chosen and the exact
nature of the end–user. For instance,
exports, despite being an institutional
segment, typically require brand
investments on a scale comparable to the
retail market. Similarly, fortified or
functional foods would require higher
brand investments to communicate the
benefit of such value addition.
Dairy Industry in India
I 
Operation Flood (a rural development program
started by the National Dairy Development
T B C G | 
 Board in 1970) heralded a series of changes
that have transformed dairying into a large
industry, with a massive impact on rural
incomes, employment, and nutrition levels
across the country over the past four decades.
Today, India is the world’s largest milk producer
(approximately 120 million tonnes in 2011).
The per capita availability has risen to 281
grams from 112 grams in 1970, despite doubling
of the population.
A source of income for millions of farmers, the
dairy industry was estimated to be worth
almost Rs. 1,600 billion in 2009. Milk is also the
largest agricultural commodity produced in
India, ahead of rice and wheat.
Despite the commendable growth achieved
during Operation Flood, the dairy industry still
faces some issues. Going forward, it is ill–
equipped to meet the challenges. A majority of
the marketable surplus2 (about 70 percent)
continues to be handled by unorganized players,
while co–operatives and private dairies handle
only about 20 percent, and 10 percent,
respectively. In fact, unorganized players
E . | Segmental split of Indian dairy industry and growth of organized players

account for an estimated 75 percent of the
entire dairy industry, and dominate key
segments like liquid milk, ethnic products3, ghee,
and yoghurt. However, organized players in
these segments have registered healthy growth
over the past few years (see Exhibit 2.12).
O   
The dairy industry holds significant growth
potential, particularly for the organized players.
The organized dairy industry is expected to
expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) of 17 percent — from approximately
Rs. 350 billion to Rs. 750 billion — through
2015. Select product segments like liquid milk,
yoghurt, and cheese are expected to register
higher growth rates. Rising incomes and
changing consumer preferences for processed
dairy are expected to be the key growth drivers
for organized dairy. Development in adjacent
spaces like cold chain infrastructure will have
an impact on this pace of growth.
Impact of rising incomes
The demand for milk and milk products in rural
and urban households follows distinctly

 
 

 

  

 









 

  
 
   
* 
   
 
  
 
   
!" #$%         
 

  

& ' () 

) 

Sources: Ministry of Food Processing Industries in India, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, Corporate annual reports, Press releases,
BCG analysis.
1
Organized players only.
2
Clarified butter.
3
Primarily khoa and channa.
4
Includes milk powder and dairy creamer.
5
Includes paneer, mozarella and cheese spreads.
6
Includes UHT milk, milk beverages and sour milk drinks.

 | I A — C F O

different patterns (see Exhibit 2.13). Only dairy
has an increasing share of the monthly food
expenditure as one moves up the income
deciles4. For all other items — cereals, pulses,
edible oil, and vegetables — the share of
consumption within a household drops steadily
as monthly expenditure increases5. Dairy is thus
an aspirational ‘luxury good’ for a majority of
Indian households. Dairy also accounts for a
significant chunk of the monthly expenditure; it
is next only to cereals in both rural and urban
households.
Changing consumer preferences
As indicated earlier, processed food is another
food item whose share increases with
expenditure. It currently has a small share in
absolute terms, but this is expected to change.
With growth in the economy, demand is
expected to gravitate toward processed and
functional dairy products (see Exhibit 2.14). A
trend is already evolving in India, with the
introduction of fortified milk, probiotic yoghurt,
flavored cheese, etc., by multiple players.
Presently, Amul markets Swiss (Emmental)
and Dutch (Gouda) cheeses in India, while
E . | Increasing demand for dairy as income deciles increase
Dairy an ‘aspirational’ good across income deciles
 
 
Nestle has introduced fortified milk with
Omega–3 fats. Increasing nutritional awareness
and global exposure have created a nascent,
but fast growing market for products such as
these. However, even as this shift occurs,
industry players will have to keep addressing
the high demand for ethnic products like ghee,
khoa, paneer, etc., which remain the mainstay
of processed dairy in India.
K   
The dairy industry in India currently faces
multiple challenges. Listed below are some of
the critical areas which require immediate
attention:
Low–quality breed stock
A majority of India’s livestock consists of low–
yield breeds; the country’s average milk yield
of almost 4 LPD6 is significantly lower than the
global average of 7 LPD. India’s poor veterinary
infrastructure and breeding practices are key
impediments to improving the stock. States
with better quality infrastructure like Punjab,
Haryana, and Kerala have a significantly better
breed stock (see Exhibit 2.15).

   

 
 

 

 

 
  
       
    
   

     


  

Sources: National Sample Survey Organization–2010, BCG analysis.

1
Monthly Per Capita Expenditure.
2
Fruits and Vegetables.

T B C G | 

 E . | Shi towards higher value added products with rising incomes

 
 
 


 

  
#  

$


  

 


 $



    



  
  !"

Sources: Euromonitor, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, World Bank, BCG analysis.
1
Only organized market included for India.
2
Foods with added fortification for wellness benefits.
3
Processed dairy products like cheese, butter, ice cream without any added functional ingredients.

E . | Yield and infrastructure profile of livestock for different states



 
  
   !! 
 
    


     

100 
  5,000
14%
24% Exotic 6.9
4–5 Bihar, West Bengal,
80 4,000
LPD Uttar Pradesh

60 48% 3,000
55% Buffalo 4.6
Delhi, Rajasthan, 5–7
40 2,000
Tamil Nadu LPD

20 39% 1,000 Punjab, Haryana, 7–9

21% Indigenous 2.1 Kerala LPD
0 0
Population Milk Global 0 2 4 6 8
production ~7
average  


 
  
 
     


 
 

   

   
 
 
  
 
  

Sources: Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, BCG analysis.

1
Only hospitals and veterinary dispensaries considered.

 | I A — C F O

Shortage of inputs
Traditionally, milch cattle in India were
primarily fed on agricultural crop residue and
open pastures. However, multiple factors —
falling pasture availability (from 0.62 hectare
per head in 1951 to 0.22 hectare per head in
2010), a shift toward cash crops and
mechanization (leading to lower crop residues)
and shrinkage of holding sizes — increased
dependence on cattle feed. The green fodder
and dry fodder shortages have been estimated
at approximately 61 percent (666 million
metric tonnes), and almost 22 percent (139
million metric tonnes) respectively7.
Availability of cattle feed inputs8 has also
become an issue due to a strong export market
and competition from alternate industries. Key
cattle feed inputs have registered price
increases of approximately 70 percent to 125
percent through FY2007–20109, which have
had an adverse impact on yields, and farmer
profitability. Import tariffs on feed inputs have
further aggravated the issue.
Policy support in terms of import tariff
reductions or excise duty waivers for feed
inputs and public investments in pasture
development will be essential.
Poor credit flow
Low credit inflows have adversely impacted
productivity. Despite contributing approxi-
mately 27 percent of the total agriculture val-
ue, the credit to animal husbandry is a mere 4
percent of total agriculture credit. Also, while
agriculture credit expanded at a CAGR of
about 14 percent through FY2006–2009, live-
stock credit grew at approximately 9 percent10.
As most dairying is still based on agri–residue
and opportunity labor, there could be signifi-
cant improvements in yields — if credit toward
inputs (working capital loan for fodder and cat-
tle feed) is made available.
Backward linkages and procurement costs
Establishing backward linkages for procurement
is a challenge due to lack of large–scale
producers like commercial dairy farms. Captive
production, on the other hand, requires
significant investments in livestock and allied
infrastructure. In addition, the shift toward
intensive dairying is likely to lead to a steady
increase in procurement costs. It is, therefore,
critical to provide farmer extension (breeding
services, health care, etc.) and improve
accessibility to feed and credit in order to
increase productivity and reduce costs.
Product distribution
Distribution of dairy (fresh, chilled and frozen)
products remains a challenge given India’s
geographic expanse and poor infrastructure.
Fresh products11 require distributed
manufacturing (own or contracted), as
distribution costs become prohibitive. Moreover,
distribution becomes unviable if products are
manufactured centrally. A robust distribution
network is also required for retailing or home
delivery. This restricts scale, as is evident from
the lack of pan–India players in liquid milk
(players have presence only in select metros).
Improvements in cold chain infrastructure have
enhanced the distribution of chilled or frozen
dairy, but reliability and costs remain a concern.
Product innovation
With the ongoing shift toward processed dairy
products (including functional foods such as
fortified or probiotic dairy, ethnic products like
raita, flavored cheese spreads, etc.), product
innovation needs a bigger focus — especially
with regard to ethnic products. Innovations
would also be required in packaging to
effectively tackle poor storage infrastructure,
Indian weather conditions, and buyer
preferences for quantity. There are several
interesting learnings from global leaders (refer
case studies of select global dairy players) in
this space that Indian companies can emulate
in meeting the above stated challenges.
S    I 

Players keen to cash on emerging opportunities
in India’s dairy segment need to focus on the
following strategic choices (see Exhibit 2.16):
• Product choices: Players need to decide on
the product portfolio — whether the
portfolio would comprise fresh dairy or
regular processed dairy products (like
butter or cheese), or specialty dairy products
(like probiotic dahi).
• Geographic focus: The geographic strategy
(regional or pan–India footprint) should be
driven by multiple considerations such as
T B C G | 
 CASE STUDIES OF SELECT GLOBAL DAIRY PLAYERS

Almarai: One of the largest vertically–integrated dairy players (Saudi Arabia)

 

   


 

 
   

 # $  % &     
       
        

 
      !"" $ 


'   (  ) *  (  )

Competitive advantages
• Low–cost, pasture–based dairying system makes products price competitive
• Strong distribution allows daily replenishment of products at approximately 43,500 locations (market leading
position across fresh dairy product categories)
• Strong association with quality due to continued brand investments

Fonterra: World leader in dairy exports (New Zealand)

 

   


 

Procures ~40 86 plants with total Outsources all key Brands strongly Does not own retail
million LPD (4x capacity of ~70 logistics functions associated with points of presence
Amul) via its million LPD quality and
co–op linkages (India’s capacity is innovation
~97 million LPD)

No presence in value chain element Presence in value chain element

Competitive advantages
• Low procurement cost as New Zealand is a highly cost–competitive milk producer
• Strong processing capabilities (cost–effective operating efficiencies)
• Association with quality and innovation due to investments in R&D and brand

Dean Foods: One of the largest dairy processors in the United States

 

   


 

Sources from Owns majority of Owns majority of Pole position in Does not own retail
co–ops and the 100 plants the fleet of 13,000 some dairy points of presence
independent operated in the US cold vehicles segments; also
farmers; handles and UK delivering to over manufactures for
~10% of US milk 170,000 stores private labels

No presence in value chain element Presence in value chain element

Competitive advantages
• Strong distribution capabilities, catering to over 170,000 locations across United States
• Processing excellence and scale (scale acquired primarily through acquisitions)
• Strong brands in select segments (portfolio of over 50 local and regional brands)

 | I A — C F O

 E . | Strategic choices for developing a successful dairy business model

 
  
 


     

 Fresh milk

      Regional Pan India Retail B2B Exports

 Butter, ghee, cheese

  

 Probiotic or fortified products 
 
   White label Institutional
 Organic dairy

 Projected demand and growth  Processing capacity required  Product differentiation

across product segments
 Geographic spread of capacity  Own vs. lease in distribution
 Geographic dispersion of and processing (depending on
demand  Distribution requirements ability to outsource)

 
 Positioning options across segments of value chain
 Product play and geographic scale
 Pricing ability
 Business economics — Own vs. lease production / distribution and own vs. white label manufacturing

Source: BCG analysis.

product portfolio, backward linkages,
manufacturing capacities, etc., as this would
have a strong bearing on the required
distribution capabilities.
• Customer focus: Players also need to decide
on their target segment — retail, business–
to–business (white label or institutional),
or exports.
The business model (product positioning,
portfolio, pricing, and operating model) will
depend on decisions taken in these key areas.
Meat Industry in India
I 
The Indian meat industry is estimated at
approximately Rs. 500 billion with bovine
meat12 (about Rs. 190 billion), chicken (almost
Rs. 185 billion) and ovine meat13 (approximately
Rs. 130 billion) being the key segments (see
Exhibit 2.17). Pork is a minor segment with an
estimated size of approximately Rs. 14 billion.
The total meat production in India is estimated
at 6 million tonnes and is dominated by chicken
and beef (buffalo meat).
The domestic meat industry has limited
organized presence and is dominated by the ‘wet
market’14 or unorganized players (Exhibit 2.18).
This is due to multiple factors — including a
higher preference for fresh meat, low penetration
of organized retail (especially in the food
segment), weak food safety norms, and high cost
of cold chain infrastructure. Buffalo meat has
the highest organized presence, of approximately
22 percent, mainly on account of exports15.
O    
India is widely believed to have a large
vegetarian population, and thus the meat
industry was traditionally assumed to be of
minor significance. The Hindu–CNN–IBN
State of the Nation survey of 2006 indicated
that approximately 60 percent of the population
was non–vegetarian, with an additional 9
percent consuming eggs. Meat is thus a key
constituent of the nation’s diet, and also a vital
source of nutrition. However, the frequency of
consumption remains low.
From a nutritional perspective, India’s per–
capita protein supply is estimated at
approximately 57 grams per day, which is

T B C G | 

 E . | Beef and chicken are key meat segments

 
     

     









 


 

  
  

  !  !

Sources: USDA, FAOstat, MOFPI, APEDA, Suguna Poultry, Delhi agri marketing, Press releases, BCG analysis.

E . | High preference for fresh meat

India primarily a ‘wet market’

Beef Chicken
 
    
  

 !

 

 
         
  
  
     
  
  

Sources: USDA, FAOstat, MOFPI, APEDA, Suguna Poultry, Delhi agri marketing, Press releases, BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

significantly lower than that in Brazil, China,
or the United States (see Exhibit 2.19), and
given the supply deficit in pulses, a basket of
pulses and cheap animal protein sources (see
Exhibit 2.20) would be essential to bridge
India’s protein supply gap.
India’s share in the global meat trade has been
limited and is dominated by beef (8.3 percent
share of global exports), while chicken exports
are negligible. However, India is strategically
located close to some of the key poultry and
beef importing markets — including the
Middle East, Russia, and South East Asia —
that together account for over 40 percent of
global imports. To put this in context, India has
negligible exports to proximal markets like
Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong,
which between themselves import over three
times India’s current beef export volumes.
In poultry, the Middle East imports 17 percent
of global volumes, and India has negligible
export volumes. Key impediments have been
price competitiveness16 and quality issues that
may be addressed through appropriate policy
initiatives and private investments.
E . | Beef and chicken are key meat segments
There is strong growth potential for the meat
industry in India, based on domestic demand
alone (see Exhibit 2.21). The overall meat
industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of
approximately 12 percent through FY2015 and
chicken is likely to overtake beef as the largest
meat segment in India. The growth of organized
players is expected to be higher due to
penetration within the organized segment and
increasing demand for processed meat.
K   
The meat industry in India faces multiple
challenges, with quality and prices of inputs
being key issues. There has been an increasing
focus in this area with the establishment of the
National Meat and Poultry Processing Board
(NMPPB), which is responsible for
harmonization of domestic and international
standards, and for creating a policy framework
for development of the meat industry. However,
there remain certain issues that require the
attention of policy makers.
Input availability and prices
There has been a significant increase in prices of
key feed inputs over the past three years, with

  
! "#" 
    $
 
 %
! 
&''

 




   ( ( ( 


  )*( )( ( 



  )( )( ( 



  *( ( )( 



     
 
  

   !!" #$ % &! % "'   

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, World Bank, Delhi agri marketing, International Egg Commission, FAO, NSSO sample survey round 61 (2004–05), BCG
analysis.
1
Cereals considered low quality proteins due to lack of essential amino acids and constitute ~60% of total protein supply in India (~25–40% in other
countries).

T B C G | 

 E . | Chicken an affordable protein source


    
 


 
   
 

 


 






  
   
 
 

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, World Bank, Delhi agri marketing, International Egg Commission, FAO, NSSO sample survey round 61 (2004–05),
BCG analysis.
1
Recommended Dietary Allowance (~60 grams per day for normal adult of 60 kilograms).

E . | Expected growth in the meat industry in India

Steady growth in poultry,

beef consumption (’06–’10) Large headroom for further growth (2010)

 
 
     
  
  
 
!!" #$%  
 "! $%
#  
 


 
 


 
 

  
 
 
   
   
     
Poultry is the preferred Consumption low even if adjusted
meat across markets for vegetarian population

Expected CAGR of ~13% through FY15

    

15 15 5 5

 && &

& 

 
 

& 

   ' 

##  )* +,- (  ' 

Sources: FAOSTAT, USDA, APEDA, Delhi agri marketing, BCG analysis.

1
Dressed meat.

 | I A — C F O

the cost of oil meals rising by about 70 to 125
percent. This increase has largely been driven
by strong export demand and usage by alternate
industries (see Exhibit 2.22). For poultry
specifically, the feed consists mainly of corn and
soya and constitutes about 70 percent of the
production costs. This proportion is higher than
the corresponding figure for key global producers
like Brazil, due to low crop yields of corn and
soya in India (see Exhibit 2.23). In addition, the
tariffs on oil meals make imports unviable.
Regulatory clarity on slaughter
Owing to religious and political sensitivity,
there is lack of clarity on cattle slaughter.
Since cow slaughter is banned in most states17,
buffaloes remain the primary source of
bovine meat in India. However, unlike cows
or bulls, the slaughter guidelines for buffaloes
are not well–defined, and vary widely across
states. Moreover, issues like rearing for
slaughter remain taboo, and permissions for
establishing modern slaughter–houses are
seldom granted. Clarity on buffalo slaughter
and a revamp of municipal slaughter–houses
could significantly improve bovine meat
quality and production.
E . | Sharp rise in prices of oil meal

Inefficient livestock markets
Bovine meat processors in India typically
procure cattle from brokers, who in turn source
them from cattle markets. These markets are
typically set up once a week, with buyers and
sellers from adjacent villages assembling to
trade cattle. Unlike mandis, these markets are
not regulated and have non–transparent
practices like the hatha18 system that allows
middlemen to make margins of up to 40
percent19. Most importantly, traceability of
cattle — a critical prerequisite for exports — is
poor due to the change in ownership.
Poultry is increasingly being sourced via
contract farming, thereby alleviating
traceability–related issues.
In developed countries, livestock is traded on
the exchange, or reared under contract farming
through transparent terms. This ensures
standardization of quality, appropriate
traceability, and veterinary intervention.
Brazil’s state–run System Of Identification and
Beef and Buffalo Meat Origin Certification
(SISBOV) uniquely tags cattle to ensure
     


   



 
     
 
     
 !  " 
# $








 
 


       

 



  
 
      

     

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, FAO, USDA, Solvent Extractors Association, BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 E . | Low yields of key inputs


      
    

 
   

 
  



 


  

 
 

 
   

 

 

 
 

    
 
Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, FAO, USDA, Solvent Extractors Association, BCG analysis.
traceability. Policy initiatives to promote
efficient livestock markets will thus eliminate
middlemen and also improve quality of meat
produce (thereby improving export prospects).
Poor harmonization with international
standards
Globally, key import markets have steadily
introduced stringent SPS20 standards requiring
higher certifications and compliance from
exporters. Another level of complexity has
been introduced due to the variations in these
standards across markets. Export potential has
been highly constrained due to the absence of
an overseeing authority that would harmonize
standards across markets. The NMPPB21 has
recently been given this mandate.
K   I 

High integration along value chain
High value chain integration via feed
manufacturing, contract farming, and veterinary
care services holds the key to controlling costs
and standardizing quality. For instance,
integrated poultry processors in India typically
provide the Day–Old Chick (DOC), feed, and
veterinary care to contract farmers, and also
 | I A — C F O
manufacture the feed through captive mills.
This enables higher appropriation of value
along the value chain and better operational
metrics like FCR22. This may remain a challenge
in the case of bovine meat due to the lack of
regulatory clarity and the political sensitivity.
There exists potential for integration into corn
and soya procurement23 via contract farming,
through introduction of high–yielding varieties
and efficient agri–practices (investments would
be required to build these capabilities).
Scale and diversification
Apart from delivering economies of scale, large–
scale operations also reduce compliance costs
on a per unit basis. Due to the steadily increasing
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards,
there has been an increase in compliance costs
that can only be managed through large–scale
operations. In addition, for export purposes,
product and geographic diversification reduces
risks associated with disease outbreak in a
particular geography or animal.
The export–oriented Brazilian meat industry
illustrates a business model that encompasses
both elements of scale as well as value chain
integration.
CASE STUDIES OF SELECT PLAYERS
The Brazilian meat industry
Brazil is one of the world’s largest meat exporters
(second only to the United States), with approximately
26 percent share of global meat exports. In 2009, Brazil
was the world’s largest exporter of beef and chicken,
with a market share of almost 22 percent, and 38
percent, respectively. The country’s leadership in the
meat industry has primarily been on account of
domestic attributes like high crop productivity and
E . | High crop productivity and pasture availability
availability of pasture land (see Exhibits 2.24, 2.25).
Brazil treated approximately 50 million hectares of its
savannah and converted it into cultivated pasture land,
which boosted its meat industry. Other favorable factors
include concentration of livestock ownership, low labor
costs, and government initiatives like cattle traceability,
interest rate subvention, and stronger domestic
standards.
    
   
 

 

   
  
 
 !"# !&#'
     #
  
 
 

 !#&
! # #
#

!#
%# !$
 '#" " ! #$ #%

( 
&
 #
    

  
  

     
  
     
     
Sources: USDA, Ministry of Agriculture, FAO.
1
Includes dairy and beef cattle but excludes small livestock like hogs, turkey, chicken, goats, sheep etc.

E . | Strong growth in Brazilian meat trade

 

 
     

 
  

      


 


  
   
 
 
! 






    !       

Sources: USDA, Ministry of Agriculture, FAO

1
Carcass Weight Equivalent.

T B C G | 

 CASE STUDIES OF SELECT PLAYERS
The Brazilian meat industry (continued)

Brazilian meat processors today are highly integrated
and operate on a large scale. They have acquired this
scale primarily through the inorganic route (see Exhibit
2.26). To put the scale of their operations in perspective,
the top three Brazilian processors together handle
around four times India’s total meat production.
Moreover, they have presence in other geographies, and
operate across meat segments — primarily poultry,
beef, and pork. This scale has resulted in significant
savings and synergies.

E . | Consolidation in the Brazilian meat industry

Sources: Company annual reports, press releases, ABEF, BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

CASE STUDY OF LEADING INDIAN POULTRY PLAYER

The company is a leading poultry player in India, with a backward integration have been key to the players
share of approximately 18–20 percent in the live birds success.
market. India is predominantly a ‘wet market’24; live
birds form about 95 percent of poultry. The player is Contract farming
present across 12 states, and has a contract farming • De–links growth and capital requirements thereby
network of approximately 15,000 farmers. It also creating greater capital flexibility
manufactures feed in over 50 feed mills and markets • Low cost of labor, as contract farming relies on
processed chicken under its own brand. The company is surplus labor in farmer households
integrated across the value chain and pioneered the
contract farming model for poultry in India (see Exhibit Backward integration
2.27). • Reduction in feed costs via direct procurement and
investment in efficient mills
High integration across the value chain • Maintains control over feed supply throughout its
Successful implementation of contract farming and network

E . | Poultry player integrated across the value chain

4 1
Production of feed inputs  GP chicks from Aviagen
concentrated in South and West 
 Corn — South (~45%), West (~20%)
5
 Soya — Centre (~60%), West (~35%) 2
 DOC produced in own hatcheries
 50 feed manufacturing mills across India

  

 License for mandi procurement in


   
  

"#
Maharashtra3 and procurement centers in
key states
Feed, medicine etc. constituting ~90% of
 Network for ~15,000 contract farmers
production costs provided by the company
across India
 Bank linkages provided to farmers for
Farmers paid ‘growing charges’ based on $#
 initial investment
live weight of chicken after 6 weeks


    

        Own plant in Tamil Nadu with capacity of

 
  

 ~10,000 metric tonnes per annum
  ! $  (~15% of total installed capacity of India)

 Outsourced
%
&#


 Markets processed chicken under its

own brand
 High institutional sales
'
  Exports to Middle East and Japan
Outsourced
In–house

Sources: Management discussions, corporate website, press releases, Ministry of Agriculture, BCG analysis.
1
Grand Parent.
2
Day Old Chick.
3
ITC is the only other company that has this license.
4
Feed constitutes ~60% corn and ~30% soya and ~10% of minerals etc.
5
Madhya Pradesh accounts for ~60% of India’s soya production.

T B C G | 

 S    I 

Indian meat players have several levers which
they may exercise towards growing their
business. The key decision levers (as illustrated
by Exhibit 2.28) for a successful Indian meat
play are as follows:
• Meat segment and market: Identify high
potential meat segments (poultry, bovine
meat, pork, etc.) and markets (domestic
versus exports), based on growth potential,
competitive entrenchment, and potential
for processed products.
• Regulatory complexity: Isolate meat segments
and markets with a favorable regulatory
environment, based on social sensitivity,
domestic support for quality assurance, tariff
and non–tariff barriers in key global markets
(relevant for exports only).
• Ease of establishing linkages and scale: The
ease of establishing backward linkages and
scale, which are essential from a cost and
quality control perspective, for a particular
meat would depend on regulations
concerning contract farming and rearing
for slaughter. For the exports market, price
competitiveness (based on availability and
E . | Key levers for a successful meat play


  


  
!
 
prices of key inputs, compared with global
producers) of products would be an
additional factor affecting scale
Fruits and Vegetables Segment in
India
I 
Fruits and vegetables (F&V) form an important
component of the total consumer spend on
food items. The share of F&V in India’s food
expenditure has ranged from 26 to 29 percent
in the past five years (FY2005–FY2010).
According to 2009 estimates, the market for
F&V was Rs. 2,713 billion, with a historic
growth rate of 12 percent. Using the historical
proportional share of F&V in total food spend,
the estimated size of the F&V market in 2010
was pegged at Rs. 3,000 billion to Rs. 3,200
billion (see Exhibit 2.29).
India is the world’s second largest market for
F&V. Importance of F&V in India will only
grow in the future as the country’s per capita
consumption level of F&V — well behind other
countries (see Exhibit 2.29) — increases.
India’s F&V production has been growing
steadily. In 2010, India produced 210 million
tonnes of F&V. The share of fruits in the total
 


 



   
 
 
  

 

  
 
  Rearing for slaughter
  Contract farming
     Political sensitivity regulations

   Domestic support for

 quality assurance   
 Tariff and non–tariff  Availability and prices of
 barriers in key global inputs
  markets


   
 

     


 
 
 

 
 
     


 
 

 
 

 

Source: BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

production has been in the range of 33 to 35
percent, while the share of vegetables
accounts for 65 to 67 percent. Both production
and area under cultivation are growing
steadily, with growth rates of 5 percent, and 3
percent, per annum, respectively (see Exhibit
2.30).
Different regions in India produce a variety of
crops, based on their distinct climate, soil type
and weather. This geographical and
environmental diversity has ensured a
heterogeneous pattern across the country, as
far as production of F&V is concerned. While
southern, western and eastern states dominate
F&V production (see Exhibit 2.31), certain
northern states such as Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab produce a
specific variety of fruits.
In terms of F&V production, India is a world
leader, accounting for almost 10 percent of
total global output. However, the country,
which has traditionally consumed more than
98 percent of its produce internally, remains a
marginal player in the global exports market
— with a typical share of less than 2 to 3
percent (see Exhibit 2.32).

E . | Consumption of fruits and vegetables — India

Fruits and vegetables are 30% of food spend...

Food expenditure breakup — 2005–10 F&V Consumption — 2010 (Rs. billion)
 3,099
100% 28%
100 2,713
28%
75

50 30%

25 14%

0
Consumption – Cereals, Fruits and Animal Others 2009 2010
1
food bread, pulses vegetables products

...comparing favourably with the world

Consumption — 2010 Per capita consumption — 2010
 
      
600 400 India consumption to grow, as
502 2nd largest consumption
per capita catches up with RoW
306
400
126 133
111
100 72
200 135 71
48 40
74
35
0 0
China India USA Brazil Vegetables Fruits
China India USA Brazil

Sources: Central Statistical Organization — National Accounts publication, RBI, EIU database estimates, BCG analysis.
Note: All data relevant for financial years is earmarked with “FY”, otherwise data can be assumed to be relevant for the calendar year.
1
Fruits and Vegetables contains potatoes and other tubers.

T B C G | 

 E . | Production, area under production of fruits and vegetables India

Area under cultivation of

Fruits and vegetables production — India
fruits and vegetables — India


       
   
 
 
 



    

      
  
  
   
  
  



 
    

     

 
   
     
 

   

Sources: FAO statistical database, National Horticultural Board, BCG analysis.

E . | Top fruits and vegetables producing states India

Sources: National Horticultural Board, FAO, BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

 E . | Current scenario: Indian exports in the fruits and vegetables segment

India exports less than 2% of production... ...lagging behind in global F&V trade
India’s volume share of global exports — 2010
      
  

  
 
 

   
   

)* ( ' & %
 

 India’s value share of global exports — 2010
 


 

 
 
       


   )* ( ' & %
      !
   $$ !   " #
Sources: APEDA, FAO, National Horticultural Board, BCG analysis.
O    
The relatively lower level of per capita
consumption of fruits and vegetables in India
(compared with other countries) points to a
strong growth opportunity.
In future, growth in India’s F&V consumption
(see Exhibit 2.33) will be fueled by the following
factors:
1. Rising income levels, increasing affluence
in the middle class, and emergence of
nuclear households will drive growth in per
capita F&V consumption at the rate of 2 to
2.5 percent per annum.
2. Increasing overall consumer base, with a
population growth rate of 1.5 percent per
annum.
Processing of fruits and vegetables will offer
further scope for growth. With the current
levels of processing (2.2 percent) being very
low compared with other nations (65 percent
in the United States and 23 percent in China),
there are opportunities for this segment to
provide growth impetus through:
1. Increasing urbanization and the emergence
of a middle class
    
$$ &#  +  ,-. #
2. Emergence of newer lifestyles, nuclear
families, and female employment
3. Global market for processed F&V
The market for processed F&V is projected to
be worth Rs. 11,500 billion in 2015, up from
Rs. 5,800 billion currently, assuming an
annualized growth rate of 15 percent.
K   
While India’s F&V market seems to be large
and growing, it is suffering from certain
systemic issues. It is critical to identify and
resolve these issues in order to create the right
conditions to ensure development of this
segment.
Sub–standard farming sector
A primary issue is the fragmented landholding
pattern. Over 60 percent of land holdings in
India are less than 1 hectare in size, thus
making the use of modern equipment and
agri–technology economically unviable. Also,
farming in India is characterized by a severe
lack of adoption of modern farming practices,
an over–reliance on natural irrigation, and
variability of farming techniques. On top of
that, the Indian farmer lacks access to credit,
insurance, technology and agri–training.
T B C G | 
 E . | Projected market for fruits and vegetables consumption for India
Fruits and vegetables consumption — India
 
6,000
CAGR
10–14%
4,000 3,700–4,000
3,400–3,500
3,099
2,713
2,000
0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual
Sources: Central Statistical Organization — National Accounts publication, RBI, EIU database, BCG analysis.
Inability to meet quality standards
Indian produce does not lend itself very easily
to processing, or to meeting international
quality standards. The lack of infrastructure in
quality control, packaging, and testing facilities
has prevented Indian exporters from meeting
global standards such as HACCP, ISO 14000,
ISO 22000, etc. Consequently, the country’s
exports in the F&V segment have been limited
to nearby, developing countries.
Long and fragmented supply chain
The traditional farm–to–fork supply chain in
India is long and fragmented. There is also a
dearth of adequate infrastructure, in terms of
cold storage / chains, warehousing, handling,
and ripening facilities — resulting in wastage
at each stage of the value chain (see Exhibit
2.34). Each stage effectively increases the
price that the end–consumer has to pay .This
has lead to a situation where the consumer
price is as high as two to four times the farm–
gate price. While these estimates vary by
distance, crop, season, etc., the overwhelming
fact remains that the share of the farmer in
the consumer price is often very low (see
Exhibit 2.35).
 | I A — C F O
5,000–6,000
4,500–5,200
4,100–4,600
2013 2014 2015
Projections
Low processing levels
Processing levels in India’s F&V segment are
extremely low (2.2 percent, compared with 65
percent for the US and 23 percent for China).
The issues holding back processing are:
• Indian F&V produce has been found
unsuitable for processing (high pulp and
fiber levels, inconsistency in quality,
moisture content, etc.). This, along with
factors like low yields and variation in
supply, makes the situation unsuitable for
the processing industry.
• The presence of intermediaries in the
supply chain causes an undue build–up of
cost at the input stage itself, increasing the
cost of the end–processed product and
falling out of favor with consumers.
K   I FV 
Improve farming output
By working closely with the farmer, assisting
him, and treating him as a partner, private
players can help bring about better yields and
quality of produce. Contract farming is an
arrangement that has gained moderate
E . | Illustration: Wastage levels in onion, banana

Illustrative wastage in value chain — Onion Illustrative wastage in value chain — Banana

   
20 25
10–12% 16–20% 6–7% 21–24.5%

Weight loss of
20 stem not included
15
4–5%
15
10 1–1.5%
10–11%
10
2–2.5%
5 1–1.5%
3–4% 5

0%
0 0
Farmer Wholesaler Overall Farmer Ripening Retailer
Transport Retailer Transport Wholesaler Overall

Sources: Expert interviews, BCG analysis.

E . | Illustrative price build–up — banana and onion

Illustrative prices in value chain — Onion Illustrative prices in value chain — Banana

 
    
  
15–20% 100% 12–13% 100%
100 100
16–19%
15–21%
80 80
3–4%
4–6% 20–24%
12–16%
60 60
40–50% 19–29%
40 40

16–25%
20 20

0 0
Farmer Market trader Retailer Farmer Ripener Wholesalers Consumer
Aggregator Wholesaler Consumer Aggregator Market trader Retailer

Sources: Expert interviews, BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 acceptance. Some of the key considerations
that need to be taken care of are:
• It is important to earn the farmer’s trust
and involve him as a partner. Providing him
with quality inputs, training, modern
equipment, and farming practices will
definitely help the initiative.
• Invest in R&D in order to determine the
correct crop variant and the appropriate
agricultural practice that is required for it.
• It may be necessary to provide support
through access to credit, insurance products,
and contractual agreements.
• It is important to aggregate farmers in order
to build scale and improve financial viability
of the initiative.
Create an efficient value chain
Private players can benefit significantly by
reducing the current levels of inefficiency in
the F&V supply chain. Bypassing the traditional
intermediaries will help them reduce their
sourcing costs and wastage levels, thereby
bringing down the cost for the end–consumer.
Investments in the supply chain (cold storage,
ripening, warehousing, etc.) are needed to
handle the perishable nature of produce.
However, private players — in order to make
their investments economically viable —
should build sufficient scale of operations
(through farming of multiple crops, handling a
large farmer base, and establishing a large
distribution network). This essentially requires
focus on two key areas:
1. Sourcing: Private players need to improve
the sourcing mechanism by procuring
directly from farmers, thereby bypassing
intermediaries.
2. Supply chain: Private players must make
substantial investments in cold storage,
warehousing, ripening facilities, etc. to
improve various supply chain elements.
Meeting quality standards for exports
Exports of Indian fruits and vegetables have
been adversely impacted due to the producers’
inability to meet international quality
standards. Players in this space will have to
 | I A — C F O
overcome this challenge through multiple
efforts:
• Partnering with farmers: It is important for
private players to enter into tie–ups with an
aggregated farmer base, assist them in
cultivation, and secure a steady supply of
produce (wherever necessary) from them
that meets global requirements in terms of
quality, safety, and hygiene.
• Developing infrastructure: Investments in
infrastructure such as port facilities, testing
and packaging are important factors that
would boost exports of F&V.
• Getting certifications: Players will need to
help farmers achieve international
certifications, a precondition to exports.
• Implementing controls: It is critical to play
across the value chain in order to ensure
that both quality and cost controls are
properly implemented, prerequisites to
running a successful export F&V business.
Increase processing levels
In order to realize its growth potential and
succeed, F&V processing sub–segment will
need to focus on the following areas:
• Forming tie–ups with aggregated farmers,
providing assistance, if necessary, and
ensuring consistent, high–quality produce.
• Establishing processing facilities close to
farms, reducing transport costs and wastage.
• Tightly managing the entire chain to ensure
control over costs, since price cuts will
speed up adoption of these products.
Integration and scale
The success of a private player will depend
upon how it executes against the imperatives
listed above. The ability of a player to play
across the value chain will translate into:
• Assured supply of quality inputs through
efficient agri–practices.
• Exercising of strict control over the supply
chain to monitor quality and costs, and to
reduce wastages.
• Downstream presence in the retail channel
leading to fuller monetization of upstream
efforts.
• It will be important for F&V players to
achieve scale, which will determine the
viability of the investments required for
implementing these imperatives. To achieve
scale, private players will have to:
 Deal with a large number of farmers for
procurement, for improving produce, etc.
This may require tie–ups with local
agencies (agri–universities, farmer
unions and state agricultural ministries).
 Diversify into multiple crops and
geographies.
S    I FV
P
Companies pursuing opportunities in the
fruits and vegetables space in India first need
to determine the construct of their business
models and then seek to accelerate
development of the same (as illustrated in
Exhibit 2.36). The emergence of companies
with global scale, such as Dole and Pepsi, in
the F&V market may offer some pointers to
Indian players keen on building substantive
interests in this space.

E . | Key decision levers for Indian fruits and vegetables play

Developing business model Fast tracking business model

Value–chain segments Entry segments

Which segments to play in? What value–chain

 Farming / farm segment should we
management start with?
 Procurement and SC
 Processing
 Marketing / branding

Economic model

 Owned
Crop selection Target customer  Leased
 Outsourced
What crops to target?
Who will we sell to?
 Cereals Business
X  Retail X X
 Oil seeds model
 Wholesale
 Pulses
 Industrial
 F&V
 Exports Growth model
 Cash crops

 Organic
 Size and complexity  Inorganic
including adjacencies  JV / partnership
 Opportunity to value–add
 Regulations etc.
Revenue model

What kind of revenue

model should we adopt? Scale / partnership
 Trade–based
 Fee–based  International
 Countrywide
 Local

Sources: Expert interviews, BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 NOTE:
1. CII–BCG Report — Building a New India: The Role of
Organized Retail in Driving Inclusive Growth.
2. ~48% of the milk produced is consumed within the
producer household itself thus only ~52% is the
marketable surplus.
3. Mainly includes khoa and chenna.
4. Some flattening or drop at the top income deciles.
5. Household consumer expenditure in India, 2007–08,
NSS 64th Round, National Sample Survey Organization,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Government of India.
6. Litres Per Day.
7. Dhyani S. K. et al 2009, “Agroforestry potential and scope
for development across agro–climatic zones in India”,
Vol. 32(2) pg. 181–190, Indian Journal of Forestry.
8. Rapeseed extract, Molasses, de–oiled rice bran.
9. Chairman’s speech, 36th Annual GBM, Amul, August 18,
2010.
10. NABARD Annual Report, 2009–10.
11. Primarily liquid milk.
12. Since cow slaughter in banned in most states, bovine
meat in India mostly constitutes buffalo meat.
13. Sheep, goat and lamb.
14. Street side slaughter and sale of meat.
15. India exports ~20% of its buffalo meat production.
16. Relevant for chicken as India is a competitive producer
of beef.
17. Cow slaughter allowed under certain conditions in
Kerala, West Bengal and select north east states.
18. System of pricing in which buyer and seller communicate
via hand movements under a piece of cloth.
19. Industry discussions.
20. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
21. National Meat and Poultry Processing Board.
22. Feed Conversion Ratio is the amount of feed required to
produce the equivalent weight of meat.
23. A live animal market.
24. Suguna currently has a license for direct mandi
procurement in Maharashtra.

CASE STUDIES OF SELECT PLAYERS

Dole Food Company

With a presence in over 90 countries, Dole is a leading
global producer, marketer and distributor of fresh fruits
and vegetables, including a line of value–added fruit
and vegetable products. Its product portfolio includes
fruits (banana, kiwi, pineapple, etc.), vegetables (lettuce,
celery, packed salads, etc.) and packaged foods (canned
fruit, juices, etc.). A key reason for Dole’s success has
been its uniquely integrated model (see Exhibit 2.37)
— including sourcing, growing, processing, distributing
and marketing — which helps it maintain input supply
and quality, and simultaneously minimize risks and
costs.
The company is able to source inputs through its own
plantations, in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Honduras,
ensuring steady supplies. Assets in the supply chain help
it maintain quality levels and reduce costs. Dole’s recent
focus on value–added products, like salads, fruit bowls,
frozen fruits, organic products etc., marks an extension
of its integrated play, moving the company into higher
margin products. Its ability to scale up to a diverse
product portfolio has helped it leverage its distribution
base, as well as minimize the volatility of its earnings.
Dole established a ‘pipe-line’ first, building scale and
ability, and then carried other products with it.

E . | Integrated play of Dole Food Company

Integrated value chain play — Dole Food Company

Farming Sourcing and Marketing and

inputs Farming Transport Processing Branding Retailing

 Dole sources most of its fresh  Leverages  Dole has  Dole  Dole has
fruits from owned plantations in the largest forward extensively multiple
Costa Rica, Ecuador and dedicated, integrated markets and consumer
Honduras refrigerated, into ripening brands its products,
 Leases out land for vegetables containerized for fruits, products for particularly in
fleet for processing retail–salads, the packaged
 Also operates plantations in Asia
shipping plants for fruit bowls foods segment
fresh salads and etc.
produce canneries for
packaged
foods

Sources: Company information, press research, industry reports, analyst reports, BCG analysis.
1
Net Fixed Assets.
2
Ranges based on last available 5 years data.

 | I A — C F O

CASE STUDIES OF SELECT PLAYERS
PepsiCo — Tomatoes
PepsiCo entered India in 1989 to sell beverages and
snack foods which started with investment in
horticulture–based food processing in Punjab. Pepsi
decided to venture into tomato processing for selling
pastes and purees. However, a key concern was the lack
of tomato production in the state, which had a total
output of 28,000 tonnes that was largely unsuitable for
processing. Moreover, the yield levels were low, with a
supply period of 25 days. Thanks to Pepsi’s efforts,
production grew manifold, improving yield and quality.
The supply period increased to 55 days. The reasons for
the company’s success are enumerated below:
• Pepsi leveraged key local agencies such as Punjab
Agri–University and Punjab Agro Industries Corporation,
which helped the United States–based multinational
corporation acquire local knowledge and provide the
much–needed extension services to the farmer.
• Pepsi became closely involved in the farmer extension
process, providing training to farmers.
• Investments were made in R&D and field trials were
conducted to evaluate if the crop variety is suitable
for use.
• Farming demonstrations were made to the farmers.
The economics of the entire operation was explained
to them in order to have greater transparency in
working with farmers.
Pepsi’s efforts in winning over the trust of the farmers, as
well as the introduction of proper crop variety and agri–
practices, led to its immense success (Exhibit 2.38).
These initiatives also ensured a constant supply of
quality inputs for its tomato processing plant, creating a
successful model for Pepsi.

E . | Impact of PepsiCo contract farming in Punjab — Tomato


  
      


   
    


  

     
250 80 80
+614%

200 +120%
200 +225%
60 60
55
52
150

40 40

100
25
20 20
50
28 16

0 0 0
Pre–program Post–program Pre–program Post–program Pre–program Post–program

Sources: Company information, press research, industry reports, analyst reports, BCG analysis.
1
Net Fixed Assets.
2
Ranges based on last available 5 years data.

T B C G | 

INPUTS
C     agricultural
revolution is the improvement in associated
value chains. Inputs into agriculture include:
Seeds, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Credit, Insurance
and Information.
Each of these input areas is an industry in
itself, and merits separate examination.
However, this chapter outlines the levers that
may be utilized across in industries to have a
positive effect on the downstream agricultural
sector.
Agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers,
and pesticides play a critical role in extracting
higher agricultural yield. The correlation
between the quality of inputs and yield is
clearly established. Lack of quality inputs
prevents farmers from maximizing output
from their land. The growth of Indian
agriculture depends on improving the quality
and availability of inputs. This chapter seeks to
understand six key inputs that are required by
farmers for increasing agricultural produce:
• Seeds: Once the decision to sow a
particular crop has been taken (based on
varied inputs), the use of the right variety
of seeds is essential to ensure high yield.
Examples of the use of high yielding
varieties of seeds in the Green Revolution
and the Bollgard technology in cotton
clearly outline the importance of quality
seeds in enhancing yield.
 | I A — C F O
• Fertilizers: Along with seeds, fertilizers are
credited with the significant yield
improvement in wheat during the Green
Revolution. Fertilizers provide the all–
important nutrition to crops, and play a
crucial role.
• Pesticides: Much as the use of quality inputs
is essential to enhance yield, the use of
pesticides is essential for protecting the
crop from losses due to pest attacks, weed
growth, and diseases. It is estimated that
approximately 40 percent of crop yield
losses occur due to pest attacks, weeds, and
diseases.
• Credit: Most Indian farmers have limited
resources at their disposal and also have
little or no disposable income for re–
investment in their farms. Credit, therefore,
is indispensable to the farmer in meeting
the crop–cycle expenses. Availability of
credit is a key factor that will drive adoption
of all other inputs.
• Insurance: On one hand, Indian farmers do
not have access to low–cost institutional
credit, and on the other hand there are
several risks associated with agriculture
that make farmers even more (financially)
vulnerable. Some of these risks, such as
weather, are beyond control. Therefore,
insurance is a key input required to diversify
these (uncontrollable) risks, and reduce the
 risk profile of the farmer. Insurance would
also enable better access to low–cost credit
and catalyze the adoption of other inputs.
• Information: A farmer’s decision to sow a
particular crop or use a particular input is
based on the (limited) information available
to him. Access to quality information can
assist the farmer in taking more informed
and timely decisions. Similarly, the farmer
can use (timely) information to improve his
yield and realization.
This chapter looks at each of these six inputs
to understand the current landscape, nature of
challenges, and opportunities within each
segment. Within each category, a detailed
analysis is presented along the following
parameters:
1. Industry landscape and opportunity: To
understand the characteristics of the
market, in terms of size, players, and
product sub–segments, and identify key
trends / opportunity in the sub–category
2. Key challenges: To identify potential
challenges in order to realize the
opportunity.
3. Key success factors: To identify potential
ways to realize the opportunity by the
private players
In addition, this chapter also looks at the
possibility of convergence play in the
distribution of inputs to address issues like low
adoption and unscientific usage of inputs. This
chapter looks at the possibility of four distinct
business models in this space.
Seeds
I 
Seed plays a critical role in improving agricultural
productivity. It offers “low cost — easy to
deliver” solution for raising the crop productivity.
Seed is the only vehicle to carry superior
genetics with high yield potential and biotech
traits to the farmer. Technology delivery to both
small and big farmer through seeds is the most
convenient and effective way (as compared with
other productivity enhancing inputs like
fertilizers, irrigation etc.).
The Indian seed industry has seen tremendous
growth in the past and has become the sixth
largest in the world. The volume of certified
seed consumption has more than doubled in the
last five years from 1.3 million tonnes in 2005 to
2006 to 2.8 million tonnes in 2009 to 2010 (see
Exhibit 3.1). Currently, the Indian seed industry
is about Rs. 70 billion industry, and is expected
to be about Rs. 125 billion by FY2015.
Evolution of the Indian seed industry
The seed sector in India has made impressive
progress over the last five decades (as
represented in Exhibit 3.2). In the 1960s and
1970s, it was dominated by the public sector,
with minimal private sector participation, with
R&D being restricted to the public sector
domain. Until the 1980s, crop research institutes
under the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR) and state agricultural
universities were sources of technology for the
seed companies. Foreign participation, both in
terms of trade and capital, was restricted.
The seed industry was liberalized in 1988, with
the articulation of National Seed Policy. It
came with a Rs. 7 billion loan from the World
Bank to help privatize the Indian seed industry.
The policy was the turning point for the
industry, and eventually gave shape to the
organized seed industry. The policy allowed
foreign direct investment and liberalized
import of improved varieties and breeding
lines. It has provided Indian farmers access to
the best seed and planting material available
anywhere in the world.
The policy stipulated appreciable investments
by private players in the Indian seed industry,
along with provisions for a strong R&D base
for product development. As a result, the
private sector has virtually taken over the seed
industry, making spectacular progress in the
supply of quality seeds. Currently, there are
about 500 private seed companies accounting
for 80 percent of the turnover in the seed
industry. About one–third of the private
companies have technology or financial
partnerships with global players.
Low penetration of hybrid seeds
Seeds have been a key lever in improving
agricultural productivity globally. The use of
high yielding varieties of seeds played a
T B C G | 
 E . | Current and expected market size of seed industry in India

 

  
  
      

 
 
 
   

       

  
      
3 2.8 150

2.5 126
+22%

2 100
1.8
1.6
68
1.3

1 50

0 0
2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2009–10 2014–15

Sources: Agricoop.gov.in, Grain Agricultural Information Report, Seednet.gov.in, National seed association of India, Indiastat.com, BCG analysis.

E . | Evolution of Indian seed industry

Sources: Literature review and BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

significant role in making India’s Green
Revolution a success. Cotton yield has increased
by 144 percent since the introduction of the
Bollgard technology (Bt) in 2002. Yields for
maize, which has also seen increasing use of
hybrid seeds, have also increased by 30 percent
in the last 10 years.
Despite the success of hybrid seeds in cash
crops, their penetration is currently limited at
about 25 percent of the total seed market in
India. In certain crops such as rice, the
penetration of hybrid seeds is just about 5
percent (see Exhibit 3.3). Rice yield has
increased only by 15 percent since the
introduction of hybrids in 2001. China, which
has hybrids being sown in 70 percent of rice
acreage, has seen yields jump by 72 percent in
two decades following the introduction of
hybrids in 1971.
Even among cash crops, certain crops such as
mustard have low hybrid penetration as
compared with other countries. Going forward,
increase in penetration of cash crops such as
maize, mustard, and fruits and vegetables as
well as increase in the area under cultivation
E . | Seed Requirement and penetration of hybrid across various crops in India

for these crops is likely to drive growth in the
seeds industry.
K 
While the seed industry has immense growth
potential, given the low penetration of non–
varietal seeds in India, the following challenges
restrict its growth:
• Stringent regulations for introduction of
Genetically Modified (GM) seeds, restricting
product introductions
• Low adoption of current products due to
suitability issues
Stringent regulations for introduction of GM
seeds restricting product introductions
Currently, all non–varietal seeds need to be
certified by the government prior to sale.
Further, there are stringent regulatory
requirements relating to the sale of GM seeds.
Sale of all GM seeds, except cotton, is prohibited.
Globally, GM seeds have been developed in
crops such as soya, maize, brinjal, tomatoes, etc.
However, these are yet to be introduced in India
given the stringent regulatory requirements.
 
 


 

 







   


  
  
  

   
  
 

   




 
    
!
  
 
 "#$  


   "# % 

 

  


   
  
 




  


Sources: Agricoop.gov.in, Grain Agricultural Information Report, Seednet.gov.in, National seed association of India, Indiastat.com, BCG analysis.
Note: F&V: Fruits and vegetables.

T B C G | 

 Low adoption of current products due to
suitability issues
In case of certain crops such as rice, which saw
the introduction of hybrid seeds in 2001, the
adoption among farmers has been lower at
about 5 percent of the cropped area. This is
primarily due to issues relating to the suitability
of these hybrids. For example, farmers sowing
hybrid rice fetch lower realization for their
produce due to differences in taste compared
to varietal rice.
Overall low penetration of hybrids presents
significant opportunities for seed companies in
India. However, certain critical strategies would
stand seeds players in good stead, as they look
to accelerate growth going forward:
• Product development for a wider product
portfolio
• Effective distribution network to drive
adoption
Product development for a wider product
portfolio
A farmer’s decision to sow a particular crop and
then a particular seed variety depends on
various factors. In volatile climatic conditions,
certain crops may not be suitable depending on
the extent of rainfall or temperature in a
particular season. This may impact revenues of
companies supplying seeds for those crops.
Therefore, it is essential that companies develop
a wide product portfolio to reduce vulnerability
arising from changing climatic conditions.
Further, given the fact that farmers have to
contend with new diseases and pests every now
and then, first–movers that develop hybrids
with resistance to such pests and new diseases
stand to gain considerable market share. Seeds
companies may also look at acquisitions of
small or medium players to gain access to their
product, or product portfolio, and gain a larger
market share. Developing hybrids suitable to
Indian taste is also essential to ensure higher
adoption, especially in the food grains category.
Effective distribution network to drive
adoption
As mentioned earlier, a farmer’s decision to
sow a particular seed depends on a variety of
factors. Farmers typically sow more than one
brand to mitigate the risk of failure of a
 | I A — C F O
particular type of seed. It is, therefore, essential
that a strong farmer ecosystem is developed to
firstly encourage greater adoption of hybrids,
and subsequently build brand loyalty. A well–
developed network can also provide inputs on
changing agronomic conditions, diseases, and
pests for new product development.
Given the advantages from leveraging a
distribution network and wide product
portfolio, there appears to be a rationale for
the emergence of a player with significant
national reach and a wide product portfolio.
Fertilizers
I 
The Green Revolution in the 1970s brought in a
stupendous increase in wheat productivity,
helping India resolve the critical issue of food
security. Today, as stagnating agricultural
productivity impairs growth in food production
to meet the growing demand, it is essential to
take cues from the Green Revolution to resolve
this issue. During the Green Revolution,
chemical fertilizers were credited with
significantly increasing wheat productivity by
providing effective and balanced crop nutrition.
Chemical fertilizers primarily contain three
major nutrients — Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus
(P), and Potassium (K) — and certain secondary
nutrients and micronutrients that impart color
to plants, strengthen roots, and build resistance
to drought and diseases. The consumption of N,
P and K increased significantly during the Green
Revolution — from 0.8 million tonnes in 1965
to 1966 to 1.8 million tonnes in 1968 to 1969.
Availability of fertilizers to farmers
After nearly 65 years of Independence,
availability remains the biggest challenge
impeding balanced and adequate use of
fertilizers in India. By 2012, there will be a
supply shortfall of 33 percent in phosphate–
based fertilizers against a requirement of 72
million tonnes. (see Exhibit 3.4). Nitrogen–
based fertilizers are also expected to be in
short supply as set out in the chart below.
While low availability of raw materials is the
root cause for the demand–supply gap in the
case of urea, inadequate imports have resulted
in shortage of phosphorus and potassium–
based fertilizers. However, the demand–supply
gap is expected to narrow down in the case of
 E . | Demand supply gap in fertilizer

#$%  

 


 
20

15.9
15.5
14.6 15.1
15 13.6 14.1
15.1 15.1
13.4 13.4  


12.5 12.7 
 
10   
7.2 
6.3 6.6 6.9
5.7 6.0

5  
 


4.8   
4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 
 
4.4
  
0
FY’07 FY’08 FY’09 FY’10 FY’11 FY’12

  ! "  

Demand for Phosphorus Supply of Phosphorus ## Gap as a % of demand

Demand for Nitrogen Supply of Nitrogen

Sources: Indiastat, FAI, FAO, BCG analysis.

urea, given the imminent capacity additions
after the recent allocation of natural gas.
High reliance on imports
The use of chemical fertilizers in India has
grown by approximately 7 percent per annum
through the period 2004 to 2005 to 2010 to
2011 (see Exhibit 3.5). However, production
capacities for Nitrogen and Phosphorous have
grown only by 6 percent in the same period
leading to higher imports that grew by 24
percent during this period. The high growth in
imports is primarily on account of higher
imports of potassium–based fertilizers, for
which India completely relies on imports due
to the absence of potash reserves in the country.
Limited availability of phosphate rock and
natural gas, which are raw materials for
phosphorus– and nitrogen–based fertilizers,
has impeded growth in production capacities.
the recommended proportion of 4:2:1, the
imbalance in the usage of urea is even higher
in North India at 15:4:1 (see Exhibit 3.6). The
imbalance in usage can be primarily attributed
to better availability and relatively cheaper
prices of urea as compared with other fertilizers.
The increased use of nitrogen–based fertilizers
has resulted in depletion of other soil nutrients
and has affected crop productivity.
K 
The two key challenges that have been
impeding the adequate and balanced use of
fertilizers are:
• High cost of production and imports,
resulting in high subsidies
• Lack of raw material supplies for
production

Imbalanced usage High cost of production and imports resulting

The use of fertilizers in India is highly skewed
in favor of nitrogen on account of high usage of
urea. While the national ratio of consumption
of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium
respectively was 5:2:1 in 2009 to 2010, close to
in high subsidies
Under the cost–based subsidy regime, subsidy
was paid to companies based on the cost of
production or imports. However, with rising
global prices and increasing fertilizer

T B C G | 

 E . | Fertilizer consumption, domestic capacities and import of fertilizer in India


     
   

   

  

 



 
 
 
 



   

 
  
    



 
    

    

 
 

 

 
       






 



 
   
 



 


 
 
 


 
  

   
 
 

   

 



 

 
             

  

Sources: Indiastat, FAI, FAO, Department of Agriculture, BCG analysis.

E . | Usage of NPK fertilizer in different parts of India

Imbalanced usage — 2010

   
 
100
6%
12% 14% Potassium
20% 21%

80 24%

32% 27% Phosphorus

25%
28%
60

40
70%
55% 56% 59% Nitrogen
52%
20

0
East West North South All–India

Sources: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture — Government of India.

 | I A — C F O

consumption, the rise in subsidy has been
significant (see Exhibit 3.7). The government
has discharged the subsidy liability in the form
of bonds which can be sold off by companies,
resulting in enhanced working capital
requirements. While companies have the option
of selling these bonds to raise cash, most of
these bonds are trading at discounts resulting
in losses to fertilizer companies. Higher working
capital requirements have become a
constraining factor limiting operations for most
fertilizer companies.
With a view to reduce the subsidy bill and also
to correct the imbalance in fertilizer usage, the
government moved over to a nutrient–based
subsidy regime for non–urea fertilizers. Under
this regime, the subsidy is fixed per kilogram
of nutrient in the fertilizer. Fertilizer companies
are permitted to fix market prices based on
changes in the international prices of fertilizers.
Further, prices of urea have been increased by
10 percent, resulting in lower subsidy burden
on the government.
However, given that urea, which accounts for
approximately 30 percent of the fertilizer
E . | Fertilizer subsidy in India
 
1,000
800
600
400
190
200 160
50 70
120
110
0
2004–05 2005–06 2006–07
Sources: Indiastat, FAI, FAO, BCG analysis.
consumption in India, is not covered under
the Nutrient–Based Subsidy (NBS) scheme,
the objectives underlined in the scheme are
unlikely to be met in entirety. Further, while
availability of non–urea fertilizers, primarily
di–ammonium phosphate and muriate of
potash, has improved after the introduction
of NBS, there is no definitive evidence to
suggest there would be a correction in the
imbalance, prevalent in the usage of fertilizers,
in the future. However, it is still early to draw
any conclusion. Correction in the imbalance
is likely to happen over a long period of
time.
Lack of raw material supplies for production
Within urea, availability of natural gas, which
is the cheapest raw material, poses the biggest
challenge for manufacturers. The government
had instructed all urea manufacturing units to
move from naphtha or coal to natural gas–
based manufacturing of urea to control
production cost, thereby limiting the subsidy.
Fertilizer manufacturing has been identified
as a priority sector for the supply of natural gas
and the supply price from domestic sources is
fixed at US$ 4.3 / MMBtu.
950
880
760
650
640
Other
520
400 fertilizers
260 170
100
300
230 240 240 Urea
160
2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
T B C G | 
 However, in the absence of adequate domestic
reserves and allocation from the government,
many urea manufacturers continue to operate
with alternative raw material. The discovery of
natural gas reserves and subsequent allocation
and supply from Reliance Industries Limited’s
KG Basin reserves has reduced the demand–
supply gap and helped reduce the
manufacturing cost of urea.
India relies on imports for P–based and
K–based fertilizers, given the low availability
of phosphate rock and the absence of potash
reserves in the country. Other significant
fertilizer consumers — such as Brazil, China,
and the United States — are creating raw
material supplies through acquisitions or joint
ventures. However, while many Indian
companies have made significant global
acquisitions, there has been limited corporate
action in this regard. Gujarat State Financial
Corporation’s (GSFC) joint venture with
Groupe Chimique Tunisien (GCT) Tunisia for
procuring phosphoric acid, and Indian Farmers
Fertilizer Cooperative Limited’s (IFFCO) joint
venture with Jordan Phosphate Mines Company
for phosphate rock are examples of Indian
companies entering into joint ventures for
their raw material needs.
The imbalanced use of fertilizers is not only
impacting the growth in productivity but also
the existing productivity of the soil by depleting
its nutrients. Unless adequate supplies of raw
materials and imported fertilizers are ensured,
the subsidy burden on the government, and
the existing imbalance in usage, will continue
to increase.
K  
Fertilizer companies have long relied on
subsidies for being profitable. However, given
the new subsidy scheme, it is imperative for
companies to look beyond subsidies in order to
build sustainable and profitable business
models. Going forward, successful business
models will be built on the following two
critical factors:
• Cost reduction by driving operating
efficiencies
• Product innovation and effective sales
models
 | I A — C F O
Cost reduction by driving operating
efficiencies
It is essential for companies to focus on
achieving operational efficiencies and tying up
with other players to secure supplies of raw
materials. Companies need to de–bottleneck
existing manufacturing operations for better
capacity utilization, and also look to improve
margins by reducing raw material cost through
secured sourcing of raw materials.
Product innovation and effective sales models
Given the existing demand for fertilizers,
current sales models focus on distribution and
maximizing reach. However, with price de–
regulation, companies would need to re–orient
themselves to a sales–led model. In future,
creating a push for products through product
innovations would be essential to create
successful business models. The recent forays
of Tata Chemicals and Deepak Fertilizers into
customized fertilizers are examples of product
innovation.
Companies would also need to re–orient the
existing sales force to focus on building
customer relationships and driving extension
programs to educate customers on the
advantages of balanced usage of fertilizers.
Price sensitivity in global fertilizer prices is
likely to have some impact, given the scale of
India’s fertilizer consumption and the reliance
on imports. Hence, pricing innovations would
be essential to create a pull for products in the
future.
First–movers along these factors would be
well–poised to derive a competitive advantage,
through product innovations and stronger,
push–based sales models.
Pesticides
I 
Low consumption
Pesticide consumption in India is significantly
lower than the global average. The average
consumption in India is 500 grams per hectare,
as compared with 7 kg per hectare in the
United States, and 14 kg per hectare in China
(see Exhibit 3.8). Growth in consumption has
been slow at 1 percent from 2004 to 2005 to
2009 to 2010. The sluggish growth is largely on
 E . | Pesticide consumption in India as compared to global benchmarks

      

  


   


50 +1%    
44 44
41 42 42 Taiwan 17
40
40 China 14

Japan 12
30
Korea 7

USA 7
20
France 5

UK 5
10
Pakistan 1

India 0.5
0
2004–05 2006–07 2008–09
2005–06 2007–08 2009–10

Sources: Indiastat, press releases, ICRA report, BCG analysis.

account of the significant de–growth in
consumption of pesticides for cotton, which
accounted for 35 percent of the pesticide use
in India.
The use of pesticides is concentrated in a few
crops. Consequently, the usage of pesticides is
concentrated in the states that sow these crops.
Paddy has the largest proportion of pesticides
consumption in India, accounting for 26 percent
of the pesticide consumption, followed by cotton
with 20 percent. Consequently, Andhra Pradesh
has the highest proportion of pesticide
consumption at 23 percent, followed by Punjab
and Maharashtra with 10 percent each.
While imports have increased as a percentage
of domestic consumption, India still remains a
net exporter of pesticides. Exports, which
constituted 49 percent of industry sales in 2007
to 2008, are envisaged as the key growth driver
for the industry going forward. India’s pesticides
are primarily exported to the United States,
Brazil, Malaysia, and European countries.
share, with 21 percent of the market. This is
unlike the global markets where weedicides
constitute the largest share of the market (with
a 45 percent share). The low use of weedicides
can be attributed to the low agricultural labor
costs in India. As a result, manual weed removal
is more cost–effective as compared with the
use of weedicides. However, given the significant
rise in labor costs in the last few years, weedicide
use is increasing among Indian farmers. Going
forward, as usage patterns change, weedicides
and fungicides are expected to grow faster as
compared to insecticides.
Industry structure
While the industry is extremely fragmented
with over 600 players, the top 10 players
dominate with approximately 50 percent
market share (see Exhibit 3.9). The large
players are backward integrated and
manufacture the active ingredient as well as
end–formulations. The small– and medium–
sized players only manufacture and sell end–
formulations under local brands.

Insecticides constitute 62 percent of the Indian Off–patent products dominate the Indian
market while weedicides have the smallest pesticide market accounting for 70 percent of

T B C G | 

 E . | Different players in pesticide industry in India

 
  
      

   
    
  !  
    



  

 
    
 


  
    
  

       "   #


*+
           

,(     -+

    

  
  

'(  
  .+-
  
! "#$ %
 &  '( 
%
  /+0
 
    
)  

      ( 
 
    1  
/+.
     

  
! ' 

   '  

/+2
#

   
1 & 3
 #
/+4
  5   

2+.

&  6  2+

# 


2+
Sources: Press releases, CMIE, ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited, Company Reports (Data for 2010).
industry sales. Investment into research and
development has been low at less than 1 percent
of sales. International players such as Bayer and
Syngenta have invested in product development,
while Indian players such as Rallis have entered
into alliances for access to new products lines.
Players such as United Phosphorus have focused
on the inorganic route for access to new markets
to launch products. United Phosphorus has
completed 13 acquisitions since 2004, primarily
in Europe and Latin America.
K 
While the low penetration in the Indian market
presents significant opportunity for growth,
the fertilizer industry in India is faced with
certain specific challenges, such as:
• Increasing penetration of GM and hybrid
seeds which are resistant to pests
• Emergence of bio–pesticides as alternative
products
Stringent regulations for product registration
pose a significant entry barrier for new entrants.
 | I A — C F O
Consequently, while off–patent products form
the largest proportion of industry turnover,
innovators continue to enjoy a larger market
share within off–patented products.
Increasing penetration of GM and hybrid seeds
that are resistant to pests
Research and development into genetically
modified seeds presents a significant challenge
for pesticides since GM seeds are resistant to
key pests. Research into hybrids is also focusing
on resistance to pests in addition to yield
enhancement. The case of BT cotton, wherein
the use of pesticides in cotton reduced
drastically after its use, is a case in point.
Emergence of bio–pesticides as an alternative
While inadequate use of pesticides could lower
crop yields by as much as 42 percent, excessive
use results in residues and degradation of land
and low crop quality. Pesticide residues in food
have impacted quality, which in turn has
adversely affected exports of food products.
Integrated pest management, which promotes
the use of non–chemical methods such as the
use of bio–pesticides, poses challenges to the
traditional chemical–based pesticide industry.
As increasing number of farmers are sensitized
to integrated pest management practices and
the use of bio–pesticides, the growth in the
industry is likely to be impacted. The global
bio–pesticide industry is projected to grow at a
significantly higher CAGR of 15 percent over
the next five years than chemical pesticides
that are projected to grow at a CAGR of 3
percent during the same period.
K  
Overall low penetration combined with
concentration of usage within a few states
presents significant domestic opportunities for
pesticides companies in India. In the future,
however, certain critical strategies would stand
pesticides players in good stead as they look to
maintain profitability while accelerating
growth.
• Access to a wider product portfolio
• Wider distribution reach
Access to a wider product portfolio
A wider product portfolio is essential for better
product lifecycle management since pests
develop resistance to specific pesticides over a
period of time. Access to new products is also
essential for successful penetration into new
areas. Given that cropping patterns in India differ
from region to region, and hence face threats
from different types of pests, access to a wider
product portfolio will enable companies to cater
to a wider geographic customer base. Further, a
wider targeted crop portfolio would be less
susceptible to risks from reduction in demand,
due to introduction of hybrids or GM seeds.
Wider distribution reach
Given the low penetration in most regions, a
wide–reaching distribution channel would be
critical to ensure expanded reach. Access to a
wider product portfolio will ensure greater
focus from the distribution network. In
addition, significant investment is required in
marketing in order to create brand awareness.
At an industry level, companies are likely to
increasingly look at inorganic growth
opportunities to execute the critical strategies
highlighted above. Historically, inorganic
growth has primarily been through acquisitions.
However, the fragmented nature of the Indian
industry also offers opportunities for inorganic
growth.
Credit
I 
Indian farmers, with limited financial resources
at their disposal, rely heavily on credit to meet
expenses during the cropping cycle. Farmers
traditionally relied on local sources — such as
money lenders — for credit. A majority of Indian
farmers continue to rely on these non–
institutional sources for credit. Only 34 percent
of Indian farmers have access to institutional
credit. The government’s focus on credit for the
agricultural sector has helped in achieving a
robust growth of 17 percent in farm credit over
the last four years. However, the farmer base,
which has access to institutional credit, has
remained more or less stagnant. There has been
only a 4 percent increase in the number of
farmer accounts over the same period as set out
in the exhibit below. It is important to increase
the reach of institutional credit to farmers. Going
forward, setting lending targets for the number
of farmers covered in addition to the amount of
loans disbursed may help in achieving this
horizontal growth as illustrated by Exhibit 3.10.
Imbalances in credit
Although institutional credit has seen growth,
there are significant imbalances in the
composition of credit. The composition of credit
varies with the type of farmers, geography, and
the type of credit. Small and marginal farmers,
who are in dire need of credit, have the lowest
coverage within the farmer base —
approximately 7 percent of medium and large
farmer accounts for 40 percent of total farmers
universe who receive credit through organized
channels (see Exhibit 3.11).
Investment credit accounts for only 25 percent
of total agricultural credit (see Exhibit 3.12). Its
share has been declining over the years. The
decrease has resulted in lower capital formation
in the sector, thereby impacting the use of
technology and mechanized farming techniques.
K 
Agriculture is inherently prone to several risks
on account of climatic conditions, commodity
price trends etc. The risk factors in the case of
T B C G | 
 E . | Growth in Agricultural Credit

 
       
          

 

      
    
4,500 60

45.60
42.30 43.90
48.20 Number
target
3,000 40

3,670 3,750

1,500 3,020 20
2,550
2,290

0 0
2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11
(Target)

Sources: Agricoop.nic, Department of Agriculture.

E . | Penetration of credit across farmer categories

  
 
  
    

  
100

80
51% Small and
59%
marginal
60
93%

40

49% Medium
20 41%
and large

7%
0
Farmer Number of accounts Number of accounts
base 2006–07 2009–10

Sources: Agricoop.nic, Department of Agriculture.

 | I A — C F O

 E . | Share of different credit types

  
        
  

   

100
29%
80 40%
60
40
71%
60%
20
0
2006–07 2007–08
Sources: Agricoop.nic, Department of Agriculture.
Indian farmers are further accentuated by the
fact that the adoption rates for modern farming
practices continue to be quite low, especially
among small and marginal farmers. Banks and
financial institutions providing credit to farmers
primarily face the following challenges:
• High risk due to high default rates among
farmers
• High transaction costs due to small ticket
size of loans
• Limited end–use monitoring resulting in
inappropriate usage of loans
The compounding effect of these risks is
illustrated in Exhibit 3.13
High risk due to high default rates among
farmers
Most small and marginal farmers are caught in
a vicious cycle, as explained in the Exhibit 3.13.
It is the lack of availability of institutional
credit and the high cost of borrowing that
forces farmers to reduce the use of high quality
inputs. This, in turn, results in lower yield and
Investment
25%
30% credit
Short term
75%
70% credit
2008–09 2009–10
poor realization for the crop. Consequently,
farmers are unable to repay loans on time,
thereby tarnishing their risk profile.
High transaction costs due to small ticket size
of loans
Currently, the average ticket size for farmer
loans ranges from approximately Rs. 150,000
for commercial banks to about Rs. 30,000 for
co–operative banks. As a result, the transaction
costs towards due diligence and loan
administration and servicing are higher as a
percentage of the amount lent. Banks either
limit the due diligence to reduce costs or lend
higher amounts to existing farmers in order to
meet lending targets.
Limited end–use monitoring resulting in
inappropriate usage of loans
The fragmented borrower base limits the end–
use monitoring of loans. It is estimated that
about 41 percent of the credit is utilized for
non–farm purposes, such as repayment of
overdue loans, personal expenses, etc. This
also has an impact on the repaying capability
of farmers, since there is no income accrual
from such usage of loans.
T B C G | 
 E . | Compounding effect of low credit availability

 

   


 
 





 
  

 

 
 




 
 


  



  
 
 

Source: KGFS interviews.
K  
Specific actions are required at each step to
break the vicious debt trap. Agriculture credit
business models will have to focus on the
following factors in order to be successful:
• Defraying risk by taking a broader system–
based approach
• Expanding reach
• Ensuring appropriate lending and usage
Defraying risk by taking a broader system–
based approach
Agricultural loans are primarily advanced to
individual farmers, while on the other hand,
certain other rural credit models such as
micro–finance have focused on group lending.
This has been done to reduce the risk and
increase the ticket size, in order to lower the
transaction costs as a percentage of the amount
lent. Promoting similar practices in agriculture
lending through promotion of producer —
organizations and farmer groups would assist
banks in reducing risks and transaction costs.
 | I A — C F O
This would also instill a self–monitoring
mechanism to prevent diversion of loans for
non–farm activities.
Crop insurance is currently mandatory for all
borrowers to the extent of the amount
borrowed. However, delays in processing of
claims and inadequate compensation have
resulted in inadequate coverage of the banks’
risks. Adequate coverage for specific
uncontrollable factors — such as weather —
with preset claim triggers would help banks in
spreading their risks and encourage greater
agricultural lending.
Expanding reach: The high cost of last mile
reach has currently limited horizontal credit
growth. Certain initiatives such as appointing
business correspondents have been undertaken
to drive financial inclusion. However,
limitations in the scope of business
correspondents constrain the outreach of
agricultural credit. Banks would be well placed
to explore strategic partnerships with
organizations such as co–operative societies
which have existing rural outreach.
Kshetriya Grameen Financial Services (KGFS)
launched by the Institute for Financial
Management and Research (IFMR) Trust has
adopted an interesting model to expand the
reach of rural credit. The local branches of KGFS
are connected to a central hub at the block level,
and then to the regional head office at the
district level. All transactions by customers are
recorded in biometric photo identity cards that
send the data to the back–end for processing.
The local village center offers a range of products
such as savings, insurance, remittance, small–
ticket loans and investments. Loans are mostly
made to joint liability groups. The portfolio is
securitized to avail low–cost funds, thereby
reducing the cost of borrowing for the rural
customers. The branches are designed to build a
sizeable portfolio, so that they can break even
in a short time–frame of 8 to 12 months. A low
operating cost structure per branch also
facilitates faster break–even and profitability as
illustrated in Exhibit 3.14.
Similar initiatives by banks can help create
significantly higher reach and create a
profitable agricultural credit lending business.

E . | Illustrative economics of KGFS branch

    


 





 


   
 
  
  
Source: KGFS interviews.
EL COMERCIO’S INKIND LENDING MODEL
El Comercio has entered into strategic
alliances with silos to provide customers
references, thereby facilitating customer
acquisition. These silos provide in–kind
credit by way of seeds, fertilizers, and other
inputs and also refer farmers to El Comercio
for cash requirements. Given the lower cash
ticket size and reduction in misappropriation,
El Comercio’s initial portfolio at risk is lower,
resulting in lower lending rates. Transaction
costs are also lower due to the alliances
with silos that also manage repayment
wherein the farmer receives payments aer
deduction of loan amount and El Comercio
collects repayment from buyers for a fee.
Over the years, El Comercio also covers
default risk for the entire loan aer getting
repeat business from the farmer.
T B C G | 
 Ensuring appropriate lending and usage
Misappropriation of funds for non–farm
activities is a significant cause of defaults in
agricultural loans. Monitoring end–use is
difficult due to the fragmented customer base.
Faced with similar issues, certain countries
have adopted an in–kind lending model to
prevent misappropriation. An example is El
Comercio’s in–kind lending model for soybean
farmers in Paraguay as explained briefly
alongside.
However, given the reluctance of input
manufacturers to provide credit at their own
risk, a similar in–kind lending model can be
operated only by banks with the input suppliers
merely acting as facilitators. An illustrative
model is depicted in the Exhibit 3.15.
Under this model, banks would provide cash
credit to farmers for crop cycle expenses
other than inputs. Input payments would be
made directly to suppliers for inputs
purchased through a three–way tie–up. A
similar three–way tie–up between banks,
E . | Tie–ups to facilitate credit for farmers
Sources: Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Insurance of India, Press run.
 | I A — C F O
farmers and corporates would ensure faster
and efficient recovery for banks and better
price realization for farmers. The last mile
reach in such a model can also be through
third–parties, such as input providers or
buyers who would facilitate customer
acquisition. Innovation in outreach and risk
management is essential to propel growth in
rural credit, and catalyze the adoption of
quality inputs in agriculture.
Insurance
I L
Significantly low penetration
Agriculture insurance products in India are
provided both by public as well as private
sector players. The Agriculture Insurance
Corporation (AIC), which operates the flagship
National Agriculture Insurance Scheme
(NAIS), is the only player with some level of
penetration. However, the coverage under the
NAIS is also limited; only 14 percent of the
farmer base is covered under this scheme (as
shown in Exhibit 3.16). NAIS is mandatory for
borrowers growing covered crops in states
that implement this scheme. Low voluntary
adoption is evident given that only 15 percent
of the farmers covered by insurance under
NAIS were non–borrowers.
AIC offers a single product for yield insurance.
Private players such as ICICI Lombard and
IFFCO Tokio have launched weather insurance
products. However, these products are yet to
make any significant headway in terms of
penetration.
Product design
Under yield insurance,farmers are compensated
based on yield shortages as opposed to
occurrence of events leading to the problem of
moral hazard. Compensation is based on the
area approach i.e. the farmer is compensated
as per the average yield shortage in the block /
taluka as opposed to individual yield. Hence,
farmers with significantly lower yield than the
area yield do not receive adequate
compensation while farmers without insurable
losses receive claims.
E . | Farmer coverage under NAIS
  
C
The low penetration of insurance can be
attributed to low awareness among farmers
and complex claim trigger mechanisms that
are not easily understood by them. Agriculture
insurance faces two challenges that must be
overcome to drive adoption and growth.
• Lack of resources for collection of reliable
weather data
• Unviable pricing, resulting in losses and
burden on the exchequer
Lack of resources for collection of reliable
weather data
Critics have often pointed out that the current
yield insurance has inherent product design
flaws. They also question the concept of the
claim trigger being based on yield as opposed
to the specific uncontrollable risk of weather.
However, the absence of reliable local weather
data for each village impedes the provision of
weather–linked insurance. Weather data is
currently collected only at the district level.
 
 

 

 
 

 
14.5
Penetration of private players is negligible
14.1

14.0
13.7

13.5 13.3
13.1

13.0

12.5

12.0
2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Sources: Agricoop.nic, Department of Agriculture.

T B C G | 

 However, private insurers have recently tied
up with certain private players who have set
up local weather stations for collecting local
weather data. The extent of coverage and
reliability of data will be determined over the
coming years.
Unviable pricing, resulting in losses and
burden on the exchequer
To encourage adoption, the pricing of crop
insurance has been subsidized. Most farmers
are charged premiums of 1.5 percent to 3.5
percent of the sum assured, whereas total
claims are up to 9 percent of the total sum
assured. This has rendered the product
unviable for insurers. This burden is not
sustainable in the long term. Profitability is
also impacted on account of adverse selection
among non–borrowers since mostly farmers
with high–risk profiles avail of insurance.
K  
Insurance can diversify the inherent risk in
agriculture and act as a catalyst for agriculture
credit growth as illustrated in Exhibit 3.17.
E . | Insurance as a catalyst for credit growth
Availability of credit would in–turn assist in
greater adoption of high quality inputs and the
use of mechanized farming techniques. This
would have a positive impact on yield as well as
on capital formation in the sector. This would
eventually break the vicious cycle of debt that
farmers currently find themselves. However,
specific action in the following areas is essential
to drive higher adoption of insurance:
• Redesigning the existing insurance product
• Improvements in pricing
Redesigning the existing insurance product
Weather insurance should replace yield
insurance in order to provide more objective
triggers for claims. This would also protect the
farmer against the specific uncontrollable risk
and also control adverse selection of high–risk
farmers, and prevent moral hazard due to the
farmer not employing suitable agronomic
practices. Such weather insurance must be
based on localized weather as opposed to large
area coverage, since weather conditions differ

         






  

 
 
 

  
 
   
   
 
  
    
     
   
  

Sources: Literature search, BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

significantly within districts. Globally, there are
examples of index–based weather insurance.
Insurers can also customize products for each
crop since the impact of weather conditions
varies from crop to crop.
Improvements in pricing
Over a period of time, the pricing of insurance
products needs to move to market–linked rates.
However, in the interim, the subsidy must be
passed on directly to users and not to insurers.
Insurers may also look to leverage existing
distribution networks such as banks, buyers,
etc., to reduce operational costs of outreach,
and offer competitive pricing.
Information
I 
Agriculture is known to be an information–
intensive industry. The importance of
information is even greater in India, given that
the knowledge of high–quality inputs and
farming practices is yet to percolate to the
majority of Indian farmers. There are
E . | Levers for realization improvement through better information
provision
Three levers through which better information can impact farmers’ realization
essentially three levers through which
information supplied can impact a farmer’s
net realization as illustrated in Exhibit 3.18.
• Improve yield through better agronomic
practices
• Reduce yield losses through prior intimation
of unforeseen events such as rainfall, and
pests attacks
• Improvement in net realization due to
better information on prices
Currently, information is relayed to farmers
mostly through informal channels (farmer or
village meetings), formal channels (mass media,
including television and radio), and farmer
meets organized by the government or
companies. Individual sources provide
information on one or more aspects, but there is
no single comprehensive source of information
available to the farmer. Most solutions have
attempted to resolve only certain missing links
rather than focus on a comprehensive offering.
 
  
~20–25%





  
 
  
  
~30–70%

 

  

  



  

  

3–5%    
   

 
 




   

Source: BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 K 
Various offerings, both by the government and
private players, have attempted to provide
information access to farmers through varied
delivery mechanisms. However, there are
specific challenges that information providers
need to overcome in order to provide a suitable
information offering to farmers.
• Richness of information
• Maximizing reach
• Providing information at the right time
Richness of information
While information on general agronomic
practices provides useful directional guidance
to farmers, certain practices and inputs need to
be tailored to meet specific conditions such as
soil type, local weather conditions, and so on.
Traditional channels, such as television, are
unable to offer customized guidance to
farmers.
Maximizing reach
Companies have focused on providing right
guidance on input use to farmers through one–
on–one and group meetings with farmers.
Although this information is better customized
for farmers, as compared with information
disseminated through mass media, such
meetings have limited reach.
Providing information at the right time
Another challenge for information service
providers is getting the timing right.
Information or guidance, especially related
to precautions against unforeseen events,
needs to be provided close to the event. Also,
it is critical to ensure two–way communication,
where the farmer is able to access information
when he needs it.
Certain offerings, like the Kisan Call Center by
the government and offerings from private
players, have attempted to break the richness
versus reach trade–off, by leveraging
technology and providing information services
over mobile phones. The current offerings are,
however, limited on account of low literacy
levels and lack of high–cost advanced mobile
handsets to access it. Also, none of the current
offerings have achieved any significant scale.
 | I A — C F O
Moreover, each of these offerings focuses on
one or more specific information requirements
as opposed to becoming a one–stop–shop for
information.
K  
There are clear economies of scale emerging
from technology–based offerings. With the
rapidly increasing penetration of mobile and
Internet, there is bound to be an improvement
in the scope of offerings and delivery
mechanisms. However, the following factors
are essential to build a successful business in
providing information services to farmers:
• Access to content that is actionable and
relevant for farmers
• Providing a comprehensive and easy–to–
use solution
• Identifying cross– / up– selling
opportunities
Access to actionable and relevant content
Information provided needs to be actionable
and relevant for the farmer. Information that
has each of the following five features would
be actionable:
• Just–in–time: Information needs to be
provided just–in–time and at the right time
in the cropping cycle.
• Credible: Information needs to be credible.
Farmers are completely dependent on
agriculture for their livelihood, and
therefore have a significantly low risk
appetite. They are likely to trust information
only from a credible source.
• Customized: Information needs to be
customized to a farmer’s soil type,
availability of water, weather conditions,
other inputs used, and so on. The offering
must also include incentives to ensure that
the farmer provides the relevant data to
customize information.
• Consistent: The farmer needs to be provided
opportunities to interact and receive
information as and when he needs it, in
addition to information provided proactively
by the provider.
• Accessible: Lastly, information needs to be
accessible to farmers given the limitations
of literacy and local languages.
Providing a comprehensive and easy–to–use
solution
Most solutions available today focus on specific
information needs. Further, certain modes of
delivery are more amenable to literate farmers
and hence are not easily accessible to a large
section of farmers. An offering that is
comprehensive and easy–to–use would be
adopted on a large scale by farmers, thereby
achieving economies of scale.
Identifying cross– / up– selling opportunities
Providing the features stated above would
entail significant investment into research and
development of content, delivery mechanisms,
and recurring operating expenditure. Hence, it
is essential to develop revenue models that go
beyond subscription revenues. Depending on
the provider, relevant up– / cross–selling
opportunities should be identified.
Opportunity for Convergence in
Distribution
As highlighted above, access to quality inputs
is a key barrier to the agriculture sector.
Non–availability of inputs — be it credit,
information, seeds, pesticides, or fertilizers
— affects not just the quality of produce, but
also the yield per acre, and overall income
generation. Therefore, if the accessibility and
adoption of these key inputs does not
increase, there is little that the country can
do in terms of bringing about growth in the
agricultural sector.
However, there is a significant cost of outreach
for distribution of these inputs. Given the
fragmented farmer base in India, several
players in these segments have not found it
economically–viable to go the whole hog while
improving availability of their products. This
coupled with the fact that there are strong
inter–linkages between almost all of these
inputs, makes a clear case for convergence play
in input distribution.
Convergence in input distribution would
essentially entail expansion on the part of any
of the other three players in the value chain,
namely, input providers, distributors, and
output buyers. A business model for
convergence — which may be led by any of
the three players in this segment — can create
a win–win scenario for all the stakeholders,
i.e., the input providers, millions of farmers
spread across the country, and the buyers.
There are strong inter–linkages especially
within the tangible inputs (such as seeds,
fertilizers, and pesticides). Usually, there is
just one shop (selling inputs like seeds,
fertilizers, weedicides and pesticides) that
caters to a village or a group of villages. Since
most farmers buy these inputs from this
retailer, input providers can leverage this
distribution network by offering a bundle of
inputs as opposed to individual inputs. Though
retailers are bundling products even today,
this bundling is driven by commercial
motivations rather than any scientific
rationale. Bundling of goods done in a
scientific manner (based on crop type, soil
type, and climatic conditions) should go a long
way in increasing the adoption of quality
inputs.
Convergence in inputs would also enable better
understanding of the farmers’ needs. An input
provider has little or no direct contact with the
farmer and relies on the channel to provide
him customer feedback. An input distribution
play would bring the input provider in direct
contact with the customer, leading to a far
better understanding of farmer needs. IFFCO
and certain seed and pesticide companies have
already taken steps along these lines and have
also achieved partial convergence by selling
both seeds and pesticides and / or fertilizers
through the same channel.
Existing distributors are already present in
certain pockets and can look to expand to
adjoining geographies with a view to achieving
regional or national scale. This would generate
economies of scale for the distributor as a
result of the additional buying power from the
large–scale operations. However, a foray into
manufacturing of inputs is unlikely, given
significant investments required in setting up
manufacturing facilities.
Buyers today are constantly faced with
inconsistencies in the quality of output. A foray
T B C G | 
 into input distribution would enable these
buyers to customize bundles of inputs required
to ensure quality of crop output. The existing
channels used to procure end–products from
farmers can also be used to distribute these
customized input bundles. ITC’s e–Choupal and
Godrej Agrovet’s Aadhar are examples of forays
in this space.
Lastly, farmers would have access to customized
product bundles suitable for specific crops and
climatic conditions. This would encourage
higher adoption of quality inputs, thereby
assisting improvements in yield.
Based on the rationale underlined above, we
see opportunities for four models for
convergence in input distribution:
• Input provider as distributor: In this case,
an input provider would collaborate with
other input providers to aggregate supply
and provide customized product bundles to
farmers. The distribution network of
retailers would, however, continue and
would supplement the last mile reach to
farmers. Through this model, all players
can effectively utilize synergies in their
sales force. Moreover, the input provider
secures a presence in distribution and
comes in closer contact with the farmers.
• Input provider as the end–buyer: In this
case, an input provider would distribute
customized product bundles to farmers and
 | I A — C F O
also buy the end–product from farmers,
thus aggregating the supply and demand
chains. Use of inputs bundled in a scientific
manner would lead to higher output and
quality, which in turn would mean higher
income for farmers, leading to even higher
purchase of bundled inputs. Tata Chemicals
has ventured into this domain.
• Distributor–led model: Under this model,
the distributor would aggregate inputs to
provide customized bundles to farmers and
would also buy the final output from
farmers. Here, the distributor is able to
leverage the common network to push
product bundles. The distributor also
aggregates output supply and hence is able
to command prices based on higher
volumes. Currently, distributors offer partial
aggregation of inputs and cater to a small
network of farmers within a taluka or
village. However, players need to make
large investments in distribution network
to achieve national scale.
• Buyer–led model: In this case, food
processing companies or retailers aggregate
and distribute quality inputs and also agree
to buy the final output. Buyers may lock–in
the purchase of produce initially or subject
the purchase to achieving desired quality
output. The biggest benefit, in this case, is
the stability in output quality that the buyer
is able to derive through the use of
customized bundles of quality inputs.

I ’   , at approximately
140 million hectares, is next only to that of
the United States. Today, India is the top
producer of key agricultural commodities like
milk, mangoes, papaya, spices, and the second
largest producer of fresh vegetables, cereals,
sugarcane etc. However, its productivity is
much lower than that of its peers — cereal
productivity in the United States is
approximately 6.6 MT per hectare while it is
approximately 2.7 MT per hectare in India.
Even the growth in productivity — at 1.5
percent — has been lower than that of most
peers. This has serious implications for a
country that has approximately 10 percent of
the world’s arable land but supports
approximately 17 percent of the world
population. In this section, we examine the
state of farming in India, identify issues that
are limiting its growth, and look at the potential
means to fix relevant issues.
Optimizing farm output is a direct function of
the available land, choice of crop, and the
cropping pattern followed (assuming the use
of standard inputs) as described below:
• Choice of crop: A significant number of
farmers in India engage in subsistence
farming1 and do not grow crops that could
fetch them higher monetary gains. This
could be due to multiple reasons like
legacy, poor awareness, lack of capital,
reluctance to buy staples etc. Thus, while
FARMING
cereals account for about 55 percent of
the acreage they account only for
approximately 30 percent of the total farm
output.
• Cropping pattern: In 1970, only 15 percent
land was sown more than once a year.
While the cropping intensity2 has almost
doubled since then, at 30 percent, there is
still significant scope for improvement.
Farm realizations improve significantly
with increase in cropping intensity.
Moreover, certain set of crops when grown
in rotation also improve soil fertility.
• Landholding: India’s population has more
than tripled since Independence creating
tremendous pressure on its agricultural
resources, both in terms of employment
and food sufficiency. Continuous division
of land, as it is passed on from one
generation to another, has resulted in
highly fragmented land holdings. As a
result, approximately 80 percent of the
farmers account for only about 40 percent
of the total cultivated area. The average
size of land holdings has halved from 2.3
hectares in 1971 to almost 1.3 hectares in
2009. Large farms (more than 10 hectares)
account for only 1 percent of total farms in
India. This limits the farmers’ income and
availability of funds, which in turn affects
cropping patterns and agri–practices,
thereby creating a vicious cycle leading to
T B C G | 
 GUJARAT’S SECOND GREEN REVOLUTION
Between 1996 and 2006, Gujarat revolutionized its agriculture
through a gradual shi toward high value cash crops, animal
husbandry, fruits and vegetables (F&V), and a series of
measures to bolster productivity. Together, these initiatives
resulted in a 9.6 percent growth in agricultural GDP in Gujarat,
compared to 2.9 percent for India over the same period.
The Gujarat government’s initiatives during the period
included bolstering of infrastructure through various
irrigation schemes, rural electrification, and road construction
projects (which connected farms to the markets), as well as
an amendment to the Agricultural Produce Market
Committee (APMC) Act to bring forth greater private
investment using subsidies. The government also created a
special body — the Gujarat Green Revolution Company
lower productivity and even greater
poverty. Smaller land–holdings also make
it unviable to mechanize farming, further
lowering farm productivity.
E . | Three key issues with farming
Crop selection biased
towards low–value crops Sub–optimal cropping pattern
  
Limited, — as a nodal agency to implement government
schemes that also provides 50 percent micro–irrigation
subsidy to farmers. It aims to promote sustainable agri–
practices and has already improved crop productivity and
water efficiency. Private participation through contract
farming led to an increased share of cash crops and fruits
and vegetables (F&V) from 60 to 70 percent of the total value
added by agriculture. There was also greater adoption of
technology; for example, the cotton yield increased by
approximately 130 percent due to Bt cotton adoption in
about 54 percent crop area.
Gujarat provides a strong example that other states could
emulate in order to improve farm productivity and farmer
livelihoods in a sustainable manner.
The three key issues that plague farming in
India — staples–oriented choice of crop, low
cropping intensity, and fragmented landholding
— are summarized in the Exhibit 4.1 below.
Fragmented land holding
 

      

100 30 28% 100 1%
5% 2% 6% 5% 12%
10% 16% 25% 11%
80 38% 22% 80
13% 19% 23%
20 18%
60 14% 4% 33% 60
24%
25%
40 5% 40
9% 10 65%
3% 21%
55% 2%
20 20
28% 30%
20%
0 0 0
Area Produce Value 1980 1990 2000 2008E Number of Area of
holdings holdings
Pulses Sugar Semi–Medium
Oil seeds Other crops Small Large
Cereals Horticulture Marginal Medium

Large acreage (~80%) locked in

Low utilization of land Lower adoption of technology
cereals, oil seeds and pulses
reducing ‘effective’ and reduced bargaining
which have low yield (~35%)
acreage and yields power with other players
and value (~45%)

Sources: MOSPI, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, XI five year plan, Indiaagristat.
Note: Marginal farmers are defined as those with area less than 1 Ha; small farmers have area between 1 and 2 Ha; semi–medium farmers have area
between 2 and 4 Ha; medium farmers have area between 4 and 10 Ha; large farmers have area more than 10 Ha.

 | I A — C F O

Levers to De–bottleneck Farming
There are two key levers that could be used to
address issues of sub–optimal crop selection,
low cropping intensity, and fragmented
landholding. These are:
• Farmer aggregation
• Farm mechanization using
technology
F 
Farmer aggregation is crucial to address the
issue of fragmented land holdings. It can
facilitate technology adoption and build scale,
and also improve the bargaining power of
farmers in the entire agricultural ecosystem.
Agricultural extension is also significantly
simplified through farmer aggregation.
Producers’ organizations amplify the political
voice of smallholder producers, reduce the cost
of marketing of inputs and outputs, and provide
a forum for a member to share information,
coordinate activities, and make collective
E . | Different legal forms of producer organizations
 Aggregation of large number of small and marginal producers to pool produce
Objective  Collectively source inputs — seeds, fertilizers, technology
 Value addition / processing
Producer co–operative
Registered under the cooperative
societies act:
 Can have nominal members
other than producers
 Seen as welfare organization,
tax benefit
 High state involvement
 Does not allow multi–state
operations
MACS have minimum state
involvement; accepted in only
few states
Source: BCG analysis.
decisions. They also create opportunities for
producers to be involved in value–adding
activities like input supply, credit processing,
marketing, and distribution. Such organizations
also help in lowering the transaction costs for
processing / marketing agencies working with
growers under contracts.
modern Different legal structures exist to enable
aggregation like farmer cooperatives, producer
companies, and even public limited companies
(see Exhibit 4.2).
• Producer cooperatives: Producer
cooperatives are registered under The
Cooperative Societies Act with a focus on
welfare, rather than business on commercial
lines. They are largely state promoted and
are allowed to conduct business only in a
particular state. They are controlled by the
State through Registrar of Cooperative
Societies. India has a large number of
cooperative institutions in a vast range of
sectors, but there have been very few
successes. In fact, the only stars are in the
Producer company Public limited company
Registered under section IXA of Registered under the companies
companies act as producer act as public limited:
company; new insertion amended
in 2002:  Can get external equity
(FabIndia model)
 Can have > 50 members, no
minimum capital (unlike  Can have > 50 members
private limited)
 Allows multi–state operations
 Equal voting rights to all
members, interests protected  Minimum capital required
(one share / one vote)
 Large formalities, reporting
 Allows multi–state operations requirement, professional
management requirement,
 Only producers are members, taxed
difficult to get equity capital
 Large formalities, professional
management requirement,
taxed
T B C G | 
 cooperative dairy sector, and those are
limited to a few states.
• Producer companies: The concept of
producer companies was introduced in
2002, by incorporating a Part IXA into the
Companies (Amendment) Act. This was
done to imbibe the unique elements of
cooperative business with that of a
regulatory framework similar to that of
companies. Only producers are allowed to
be the members of the producer companies.
It provides equal voting rights to all the
members and also provides flexibility for
multi state operations.
• Public limited companies: Public limited
companies are registered under The
Companies Act. They can have more than
50 members and can raise external equity.
However, they are bound by a minimum
capital requirement and also need to
undergo formalities and reporting related
to their operations.
Amongst all these producer organizations, the
‘producer company’ model appears to be the
most suitable structure due to the following
inherent advantages:
• Greater farmer control without any state
interference
• Flexibility to operate across states
• Proven successful business models
There are strong incentives for both the private
companies and the government to organize
producer companies. From the government’s
perspective, producer companies could be a
strong channel for agriculture extension and
other farmer welfare schemes. From the private
companies’ perspective, producer companies
are an effective way of achieving farmer
aggregation. Private companies are increasingly
looking for farmer aggregation due to increasing
demand of sophisticated farm produce like
organic food, exotic F&V etc. From the
government perspective, producer companies
could be a strong channel for agricultural
extension and other farmer welfare schemes.
Producer companies, with professional
management, can also establish robust forward
 | I A — C F O
linkages (processing, marketing, and retailing),
thereby improving farmer livelihoods. The
positive impact of producer companies has
been analyzed in Exhibit 4.3 and 4.4 in further
detail.
F   

Farming in India is marked by low
mechanization primarily due to fragmented
landholdings that make mechanization
unviable. The average landholding in India is
only 1.3 hectares with more than 80 percent
farmers having small or marginal holdings3. It
is estimated that tractor ownership is financially
unviable below a landholding of about 3.3
hectares. Thus, tractor penetration in India
stands at about 17 per 1,000 hectare compared
to approximately 29 per 1,000 hectare in the
United States.
While there has been a steady increase in
coverage in irrigation over the past few decades
(see Exhibit 4.5); the current coverage is only
about 42 percent of the Ultimate Irrigation
Potential4. The problem is compounded by low
utilization of area under irrigation
(approximately 85 percent) and limited
adoption of water management practices
across crop types (see Exhibit 4.6).
Multiple approaches could be adopted to
increase irrigation coverage:
1. Build water resources: Increase irrigation
potential through water conservation using
check dams, nullah bunds, development of
catchment areas through afforestation etc.
2. Participatory irrigation management:
Multiple stakeholders can be involved to
ensure successful implementation of
irrigation projects. While funding can be
provided by the government or private
players, farmers can be involved to bring
about greater accountability, and the
expertise of NGOs and individuals can be
used for efficient project management.
3. Adopt Micro–Irrigation Systems (MIS): MIS
penetration in India, at 8 percent of
irrigated land, is significantly lower than
the world average of 21 percent and is
fraction of the United States’ average of 63
E . | Individual farmers highly resource constrained

 

   
   
 

     
 
  
       
  
       

  

   
       
  
 
  
 

    
        

 
   ! 

   
 
  


   

   
      "
      

      
    
    

    
  "
    
 
       
 


  

  


     
 
     

      
 # 

      

 


Source: BCG analysis.

E . | Producer company allows farmer to leverage ecosystem

 

 


 
 


 


  



 


  

    

 
   



 




 
 
 

  

 


   

  


 

 
    
  
  
   

 
  



 
 


  

  


  



   

  





 
  
 
 



 
 !

Source: BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 E . | Progress in irrigation coverage

 
   
     


   
    















 
   

Source: BCG analysis.

E . | Impact of micro irrigation


 
 
   


  
   
 
  
  








 



 

 

   
  
 
    


Source: BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

LEADING INDIAN ORGANIC PLAYER
One of India’s first farmer–owned private company, this
player, aims to successfully create a win–win model for all
its stakeholders. It has approximately 6,000 farmers that
together hold more than 50 percent equity in the company.
The company controls 20,000 acres of land for cultivating
organic cotton. There are several benefits emerging out
of this unique model:
as premium, apart from investing in community
development projects.
• Facilitating direct access to consumers: It has entered
into partnership with several international brands to
procure cotton directly from farmers. It has also
partnered with large Asian mills.

• Promoting sustainable agricultural practices: The
farmer owned model deployed by this company
reduces dependence on expensive agro–chemicals
through the use of manure and crop rotation. This
process also helps in reducing water contamination
and soil degradation.
• Enhancing farmer welfare: Since its formation in
2007–2008, the player has paid farmers Rs. 10 million
• Enabling farmers to attract capital: This model has also
raised interest from venture capital funds and banks.
Several micro-venture funds have picked up stake in
the company.
Key success factors (see Exhibit 4.7) for this model include
farmer ownership and empowerment, guaranteed
transparency in supply chain, and training and coaching
of farmers for better quality and yield.

E . | Key success factors in the organic players’ business model

+ India’s first farmer–owned private company

+ ~6,000 farmers holding more than 50% equity stake in the company
+ ollectively the company controls 20,000 acres of land for cultivating organic cotton


   

 

 
   

 Each farmer owns shares in the  Provide consumers i.e.
company and has equal international brands, direct
voting rights access to farmers
 For every ton of raw cotton  Reduced complexities in supply
bought, Rs. 1,100 is invested   through direct access to the
by the player
    companies

 




 

 
 

 
 Engages closely with farmers
and helps them in resolving
farm issues

Source: BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 percent. Adoption of MIS will provide the
twin benefits of water conservation through
efficient technology and greater productivity
through scientific farming techniques (see
Exhibit 4.6). From an opportunity
perspective, even if MIS coverage grows to
only approximately 4.9 million hectares, it
would create an approximately Rs. 150
billion opportunity for private players over
the next five years.
MICRO IRRIGATION, A RS. 500 BILLION OPPORTUNITY
Water is fast becoming a bottleneck to improving
productivity. Imprudent policies have resulted in over
exploitation of resources and have also hurt farm
productivity. It is in this context that micro–irrigation
holds tremendous potential. Micro–irrigation can
increase productivity while saving water (Exhibit 4.8).
The Task Force on Micro–Irrigation (2004) had set a
target of increasing coverage to 17 million hectares by
2012 of which only about 4.6 million hectares was
E . | Significant yield improvement and water saving across crops
Significant yield improvements and water savings through micro–irrigation

( "'
*
Wasteland Farming
Wasteland farming has so far drawn very little
attention in India. Apart from approximately 140
million hectares of arable land, India also has
approximately 13 million hectares of culturable
wasteland. If made culturable, wastelands can
substantially increase agricultural production.
The Ministry of Agriculture classifies culturable
wasteland as follows — “lands available for
realized by 2010. With sustained government subsidies
(50 to 75 percent of installation cost), it is believed that
this target may be achieved over the next 7 to 10 years
provided sustained focus by companies. Micro–irrigation
thus presents an opportunity of approximately Rs. 500
billion over the next 10 years. Private players like Jain
Irrigation Systems have already built a significant
business around this opportunity, but there exists
enough room for new entrants.
      )

" %(
%" %" %%

%
"

&  

$" $%
$ $$ $$

$ !#
! ! !$
!
! &'
&"

&
"
 $


     
            

   
 

Source: BCG analysis.

 | I A — C F O

cultivation, whether not taken up for cultivation
or taken up for cultivation once but not cultivated
during the current year and the last five years or
more in succession for one reason or other. Such
lands may be either fallow or covered with shrubs
and jungles which are not put to any use. They
may be assessed or unassessed and may lie in
isolated blocks or within cultivated holdings. Land
once cultivated but not cultivated for five years in
succession is also included in this category at the
end of the five years.”
These large chunks of wastelands offer ample
opportunity to bring about a step change in
agricultural production. At approximately 13
million hectares, these wastelands offer a
significant lever to improve agricultural
production as this additional land bank constitutes
about 10 percent of India’s arable land. To put
this in perspective, the current area under oilseeds
and pulses cultivation is 26.7 million hectares,
and 23.6 million hectares, respectively. If these
wastelands can be used for the cultivation of
oilseeds and pulses (in rotation), the production
of both these commodities can be increased by
up to 50 percent.
E . | Distribution of waste land across states
Interestingly, only three states account for over
50 percent of these lands (see Exhibit 4.9) —
Rajasthan (26 percent), Gujarat (20 percent),
and Madhya Pradesh (8 percent). The
concentration of these wastelands in three
states should make it a lot easier to bring them
under cultivation.
Some states have initiated policies that allow
for long–term lease of wastelands (Table 4.1),
but there has been limited interest from private
players. The government can generate interest
amongst private players through a long–term,
lease–based model with policy support by way
of investment credit, tax exemptions, and
allowing direct farm sourcing. The land may be
leased to both corporate entities and individual
farmers and a limit could be placed on the
usage of wastelands for non–farm activities
such as for setting up processing units, roads,
offices etc.
Currently, wasteland farming is an untested
concept and thus the burden of proof lies with
the government to demonstrate its viability.
Once proved, it is likely to find significant

      

 

   
  

Culturable waste land ’000 hectares








 















 !"       
  
  
# # # # # $# # # #
 


Sources: Land Use Statistics from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation.
Note: Cultivable waste land refers to land available for cultivation, whether taken up or not taken up for cultivation once, but not cultivated during the last
five years or more in succession. Figures for latest available year 2009–10.

T B C G | 

 T . | Summary of policies for wastelands in key states

    

 

 2005 2007 2007

 
 2 million hectares 4.6 million hectares 1.2 million hectares

    20 years 20 years 30 years

   
Preference for horticulture Bio–fuel crops only No restriction specified
and bio–fuel trees

   800 hectares 5,000 hectares Not specified

  

No restriction 30% of total No restriction
 
  

 
 ) No rent for 5 years ) 10 times of land revenue ) Rs. 500 per hectare for
) Rs. 100 per hectare for of lowest category of first 5 years
next 5 years barani land in the ) Rs. 1,000 per hectare for
) Rs. 250 per hectare for relevant tehsil next 5 years
next 10 years ) Rs. 1,500 per hectare for
) 50% increment for value next 20 years
adding activities

Source: State Government websites.

uptake from the corporate sector and individual
farmers alike, and this can substantially
increase agricultural production. The benefits
from this exercise will be manifold, as
enumerated below:
• These farms will enjoy benefits of scale
(resulting in superior productivity) and
investments in allied infrastructure like
food processing units
• Investments in these wastelands will create
several rural employment opportunities
• Wasteland farming can also be a less
politically–sensitive means of introducing
corporate farming in India which, if well–
monitored, will undoubtedly boost
production
NOTE:
1. Form of farming where production is primarily meant
for self–consumption.
2. Ratio of gross cropped area to net sown area — thus
if a farmer has two crops a year the intensity is said to
be 200%.
3. Marginal farmers are those with area < 1 Ha, small
farmers have area between 1 to 2 Ha.
4. Theoretical gross area that could be irrigated through
available water resources.

• They could serve as centers of excellence in

farm practices for neighboring farms

 | I A — C F O

WASTELAND FARMING IN BRAZIL
Brazil has already set the precedent through the
development of its wastelands, also known as cerrado.
The cerrado, spread over 200 million hectares, were widely
believed to be infertile as the land was too acidic and
lacked nutrients. In the 1970s, Brazil began investing
heavily in the region in order to augment its agricultural
land by 3 million hectares. Brazil’s agriculture research
organization, Embrapa, treated these lands and in three
decades over 80 million hectares have been added and
the cerrado today accounts for approximately 70 percent
of Brazil’s farm output. According to Edson Lobato,
Technical Director of the Embrapa Cerrado Research
Centre, this development has caused an annual reduction
E . | Impact of wasteland farming on Brazil exports
Brazil has increased area under cultivation over the last decade
   
of 5 percent in the average cost of food. The cerrado is
widely credited with Brazil’s growth in food trade (see
Exhibit 4.10)
Brazil has also commercialized the process of wasteland
development. BrasilAgro, a Brazilian real estate company,
purchases wastelands and then makes them attractive
from an agriculture perspective by treating them,
developing suitable hybrids, and setting up the required
support infrastructure. These wastelands are then sold
to farming entities for a profit. BrasilAgro currently has
over 165,000 hectares across Brazil, and has already
made profits on multiple transactions in the past.
 

50 47 49 48 47 48 48 48
46
44
40
40 38 38

30

20

10

0
1999–00 2001–02 2003–04 2005–06 2007–08 2009–10
2000–01 2002–03 2004–05 2006–07 2008–09 2010–11

~3.5x increase in beef exports ~4x increase in soybean exports

   
    

6,000 20,000
+17% +18% 16,327
3,995 4,167
3,480 3,866 11,424
4,000
3,129 3,019 10,952 11,043
2,417 10,000 6,709
1,961 5,395 5,663
2,000 1,154 4,290 5,345

0 0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
2004 2006 2008 2010 2004 2006 2008 2010

Brazil is the world’s 2nd largest exporter of beef and soybean

Sources: CONAB, ABIEC (Secex–MDIC)

T B C G | 

POSTHARVEST
SUPPLY CHAIN
I ’ –   is
fragmented, with poor infrastructure and
high levels of wastage. Inefficiencies in the
supply chain are leading to major losses. The
estimated loss of agricultural produce due to
lack of adequate post–harvest infrastructure
and an inefficient supply chain management is
approximately Rs. 500 billion to Rs. 600 billion
every year.
Most warehouses and logistics providers do
not have adequate scientific and technical
facilities to store and transport perishable
commodities like seafood, fruits, vegetables,
etc. Nearly 30 to 40 percent of horticulture
produce is wasted annually because of
inadequate storage and transportation
facilities.
The post–harvest supply chain is one of the
critical levers that can resolve some of the key
issues plaguing agriculture in India. It also
presents large opportunities for the private
players to build a profitable business.
Storage / Warehousing
India is faced with an acute shortage of
warehousing capacity. The current capacity of
dry storage is to the tune of approximately 85
million MT, built by both public and private
players, and the shortage is 45 million to 55
million MT. With increasing demand for
warehousing space, the shortfall is expected to
 | I A — C F O
rise to approximately 70 million to 80 million
MT by 2015. Therefore, the country currently
requires 130 million to 140 million MT of dry
storage for the annual produce of approximately
220 million MT of food grain, 27 million MT of
oilseeds, and 35 million MT of other cash crops
(cotton, jute). The cold storage infrastructure in
the country is even scarcer. Current cold storage
capacity is estimated to be about 25 million
MT against the total demand of approximately
60 million MT, leading to a shortfall of about
30 million to 35 million MT. It is also highly
concentrated toward one kind of agriculture
produce, i.e., potatoes. Cold storage space for
potatoes accounts for nearly 75 percent of the
total cold storage space available in the country
(see Exhibit 5.1).
K   

• Highly fragmented sector with presence of
many local players: The warehousing
industry in India is dominated by several
unorganized players with low capacities
and poor deploying, handling, stacking, and
monitoring facilities. There is high
competition from smaller players —
ranging from small truckers to non–
registered business entities — that offer
only small space for storing goods.
• Small and poor quality warehouses: A
majority of the warehouses in the country
are about 5,000 square feet in space against
E . | Demand supply of warehousing infrastructure in the country

    

 
 
 

  
 
 


         
 
     

 
   
 

75 30

4.0 0.5 55–65 30–35 5.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 24.5

60
35–40
20 18.4
45

30
24.5
10
Accounts for
15–20 75% of total cold
15
storage space

0 0
Potatoes Meat and Total Supply Potatoes Meat and Others
fish demand fish
Fruits and Flowers Gap Multi Fruits and Total
vegetables and others purpose vegetables


   
 
   
  

~25% shortfall in the current supply of Current planned capacity addition would
warehouses in India not be able to meet future demand

 
   
 
200 200 180–190 85

50% shortfall
150 130–140 150
45–55

30–35
100 100
30 85 70–80

20
50 50
10
25

0 0
FCI CWC SWC Others Total Gap Required Expected Existing Capacity Gap
1
capacity demand capacity planned

Leading to a loss of Rs. 50,000–60,000 crores worth of agriculture produce

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture; Department of food and public distribution; BCG analysis.
1
Expected to grow at a CAGR of 8% for next 5 years.

T B C G | 

 an average size of approximately 50,000
square feet in developed countries. Smaller
sizes (and related economics) limit the
ability of warehouse owners to invest in
high–quality construction, technology, and
modern material handling equipment.
• Non–uniform distribution of warehousing
facilities: Existing warehousing capacities
are concentrated in four states — Uttar
Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, and Andhra
Pradesh — and account for 60 percent of
the warehousing capacities nation–wide.
• Lack of supporting infrastructure like
power, specialized transportation: Lack of
power and specialized transportation to
carry goods to and from warehouses leads
to increase in the operating costs, making it
economically unviable for the warehousing
company.
S     
   
Over the last few years, the government has
introduced several regulations and subsidies to
make the warehousing sector attractive for
private investments.
1. The Warehousing Development &
Regulation Act: This Act, introduced in
2007, is the first regulatory initiative
undertaken for the Indian warehousing
industry. The Act has been enacted to
ensure that farmers are able to keep their
goods in certified warehouses and use the
warehousing receipt as a negotiable
instrument. This has enabled banks and
other financial institutions to step into the
commodities and warehousing space. With
this regulation, farmers can take loans
from commercial banks against negotiable
warehousing receipt, and avoid distress
sales to meet their urgent cash needs.
2. Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ)
Act: This Act is aimed at the development
of Free Trade Warehousing Zones (FTWZ)
as a special category of SEZs to facilitate
import and export of goods. Under this
Act, several tax exemptions / benefits are
given to FTWZs, such as exemption from
income and service tax, free foreign
exchange transactions etc.
 | I A — C F O
3. The Private Entrepreneur Guarantee
Scheme: This scheme has been launched
to promote private investment in
agricultural warehouses by making them
commercially attractive. Under this
scheme, the Food Corporation of India
(FCI) guarantees constant revenue stream
to the investor by renting out the
warehousing space for the next ten years.
4. Other subsidies and financial assistance:
Several other initiatives have been
launched by the government to provide
financial assistance to the entrepreneurs
(for setting up warehouses) in the form of
subsidy and low–cost loans. Some of these
are mentioned below:
• Investment subsidy: Provides subsidy of up
to 15 percent of the capital investment
(required for setting up a warehouse) with
an upper limit of Rs. 2.81 million.
• Income tax benefit: Allows deduction of
capital expenditure, other than the cost of
land, for setting up and operating a
warehouse facility for agricultural produce.
• Lower cost of capital: Categories investments
made in agricultural warehouses as priority
sector lending leading to lower rates of
interest for new developments.
In addition, 100 percent FDI investments are
permitted in agriculture infrastructure like
cold chains, warehouses, and food parks.
E   

The traditional warehousing business model is
highly asset–intensive. Both dry and cold storage
require heavy upfront investments in land
acquisition and infrastructure. On a standalone
basis,a warehouse business is not an economically–
viable business (see Exhibit 5.2, 5.3).
Changing government regulations and growth
in organized retail have introduced a range of
allied activities for the warehousing industry.
For example, with the introduction of
Warehousing Receipt1, warehousing companies
are partnering with banks to facilitate
commodity funding and collateral management.
Several warehousing companies are also
E . | Economics of a standalone dry storage warehouse

  



       
  
   




 



       
  
 


 
  
 


   

High variation in revenue due
40 1.2–1.5 0.3
1–1.5 10 to differences in locations
22–24 33–38
and utilization levels
5–6.5 1.5–2.5
30
Government subsidy
really minuscule 5
2.5–4.0 2.2–2.5
20
2.2–2.4
12–14
0
10
On a cash–flow basis, it 1.0–1.5
can be marginally positive
0 –5
Land Machinery Subsidy Revenue Operating Depreciation
2

cost cost profit

Construction P&M Total capital Operating Interest
cost cost cost expense cost1 EBT
Sources: Industry interviews; BCG analysis.
1
Calculated at 2:1 D:E ratio @10% interest rate.
2
Straight Line depreciation for a 10 year period.

E . | Economics of dry storage warehouse with allied services

 
 
  

 
   
 
 


 
  
 
 
    
  
     

   
4 6
On a cash–flow basis, it will
be a cash positive business
2 2.5– 3 3.0–
2.5– 2.2– 4.5–
4.0 3.5
4.0 2.5 3.5– 5.5
5.5
0 0
2.2– 3
0.0– 2 1.5 0.1
2.4 1.5
–2 –3
Operating Depreciation2 EBT from Operating Depreciation2 Revenue
3
profit other sources profit from WRF
Interest EBT from Total Interest EBT from Total
cost1 storage EBT cost1 storage EBT

/ Dry storage has additional revenue streams like / Limited scope for additional revenue streams in
WRF, procurement, collateral management etc. case of cold storage
/ Economically viable model for an independent play / Most of the time present as captive units;
subsidized by other business

Sources: Industry interviews; BCG analysis.

1
Calculated at 2:1 D:E ratio @10% interest rate.
2
Straight Line depreciation for a 10 year period.
3
Other sources include WRF, Collateral Management, Procurement.

T B C G | 

 partnering with retailers and traders to procure
produce directly from farmers. However, many
of these allied services are more conducive to
food grains than horticulture due to the
perishable nature of the produce. Hence, these
additional revenue streams from allied
activities make dry storage a more profitable
business with a project IRR2 of approximately
15 to 20 percent. With improved project IRRs
and high growth, the dry storage industry has
become an attractive industry for many private
investors. Recently, the industry has seen
multiple investments from private equity
players in companies like National Collateral
Management Services Limited (NCMSL) and
Sohan Lal Commodities.
G,     
,  

Globally, warehousing is a large industry where
several organized players have built large,
profitable businesses (see Exhibit 5.4). For
example, in the United States, the total

E . | Examples of Global agri–warehouse companies

Source: Annual reports.

Note: Revenue for year 2011. Value in brackets denotes negative figure.

GRAINCORP  A LARGE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE STORAGE AND

LOGISTIC PLAYER
GrainCorp Limited is a large Australian company with its
core business as storage and supply of grains and related
commodities. It not only provides logistics but also a
market for these commodities. The company has presence
in four key geographies — Australia, the United Kingdom,
the United States, and Canada — with Australia
accounting for 68 percent of its total revenues. In Australia,
GrainCorp has built significant presence in the eastern
region. Currently, the company stores and handles 60
percent of the grain grown in the region. It operates from
seven out of eight bulk grain ports in the region, handling
80 percent of the volume.
GrainCorp started out as an agricultural storage and
logistic player with approximately 20 million MT of
storage capacity, 13 million MT of shipping capacity, and
1 million MT of road transportation capacity. Over a
period of time, the company has forward–integrated into

 | I A — C F O

GRAINCORP  A LARGE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE STORAGE AND
LOGISTIC PLAYER CONTINUED
trading, food processing, and exports. Aer building a
successful business in storage and logistics, it has forayed
into trading of grains and protein meals, and is serving
the domestic market. Lately, in order to improve its
profitability, the company has entered into food processing
by acquiring a 60 percent stake in Allied Mills —
Australia’s largest supplier of flour and bakery pre–mixes.
The evolution of Graincorp, from a logistics focused player
to an integrated player, is illustrated in Exhibit 5.5.
Key success factors for GrainCorp:
• Build an end–to–end business across crops in a
concentrated geography: GrainCorp has focused
mainly on the eastern region of Australia for several
years and has built a strong method of grain
procurement, storage, logistics, and export business
in the region. The company has diversified across
E . | Progression in GrainCorp business with time
Sources: Company annual report and press search.
crops grown in the region to ensure better asset
utilization and to spread crop–specific risks.
• Improved margins by forward integration into food
processing: In order to improve its margins, GrainCorp
has entered into downstream processing of wheat
and barley via Allied Mills and GrainCorp Malt. It is
leveraging its grain sourcing and trading experience
in barley procurement in the international markets
for GrainCorp Malt.
• Inorganic growth across the value chain and geography:
GrainCorp has gained substantial scale and acquired
expertise rather quickly through multiple acquisitions
and joint–ventures. For instance, it became the fourth
largest commercial malt producer in the world in just
a few years by acquiring four large malt companies in
Canada, US, UK, and Australia.
T B C G | 
 warehousing space is approximately 5 billion
square feet, which is equivalent to 4.1 square
feet of space in the warehouse for every
American (the United States has a total
population of about 300 million).
W   I
The warehousing industry in India is still at a
very nascent stage. However, increasing
demand for storage space, efficient handling,
and supporting regulations have encouraged
private players to make investments in this
sector. Several companies like National
Collateral Management Service Limited
(NCMSL) and Shree Shubham Logistics have
entered this space with aggressive ramp–up
plans (see Exhibit 5.6). Different companies
have adopted different business models to
build a profitable business. Overall, four
business models have emerged in the
warehousing business. These are as follows:
• Standalone, best–in–class storage provider:
The key focus area of players that have
adopted this business model is to provide
premium warehousing services by building
E . | Examples of Indian warehousing companies
Sources: Press search; BCG analysis.
 | I A — C F O
large–scale sophisticated storage space. For
example, Sohan Lal Commodities offers
high–end technical service like SAP
solutions that are fully–integrated with its
clients’ supply chain management systems
along with regular storage.
• End–to–end logistics provider: Under this
model, the warehousing company offers a
one–stop shop for the entire logistics
requirement of a corporate. This model
requires heavy capital investments since
both warehousing and transportation are
highly capital–intensive businesses. Players
like StarAgri Warehousing and NCMSL are
examples of players with this type of
business model.
• Forward / backward integrated players
through the use of strategic assets: There is
a significant opportunity to leverage
warehousing assets, be it tangible ones (like
space, infrastructure and human resource),
or intangible ones (like relationships with
traders and farmers, brand image across
other businesses etc.).
LEADING INDIAN AGRIWAREHOUSING COMPANY

The company offers end–to–end warehousing and logistics
solutions to commodity stakeholders with a strong focus
on traders. Along with warehousing, the company offers
allied–services like commodity funding, collateral
management, testing and certification, fumigation and
pest management, commodity procurement, trading, and
exports. It has also forward–integrated into branding and
retailing of spices to leverage fixed assets more effectively
(see Exhibit 5.7). The company has developed a strong
presence in Rajasthan and Gujarat with more than 10
warehouses totaling more than 0.5 million MT of capacity.
It plans to build approximately 1 million MT of capacity in
five to six states including Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka,
and Punjab.
The player has strategically forged partnerships with
multiple agri–stakeholders to build a scalable, stable, and
asset–light model.
• Partnership to ensure higher capacity utilization: The
company has tied up with NCDEX Spot Exchange
(NSPOT) to provide warehousing and logistics support
to the NSPOT participants. This partnership has not
only helped the player in ensuring better capacity
utilizations, but also fetched it better warehousing
rentals.
• Partnerships to explore additional revenue streams:
The player has tied up with multiple banks to provide
collateral management for extending post–harvest
credit facilities to farmers, traders etc.
• Partnerships to support asset–light expansion: The
company has entered into a strategic tie–up with the
Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (RSWC) to
manage the latter’s warehouses by taking control over
its entire operation. This partnership has enabled it to
expand thrice its own capacity with minimum
investments. Moreover, a tie–up with a public sector
company has enabled the company to enter long–term
contracts.
• Captive storage: This business model is mainly
applicable for produce that requires special technology
and methodology for preservation. For instance, Adani
Agrifresh has set up a captive cold storage with imported
technology to preserve its goods due to lack of local
providers in this space.

E . | Business progression for leading Indian agri–warehousing player

Plan going
2007 2008–09 2010
forward

Acquired a local Expanded by building own Leased state government Expand across
Storage warehouse player warehouses in 2 states warehouses to expand 5 more states in India

 Tied–up with banks, stock exchanges to provide

services like Collateral management, procurement
 Set up facilities for testing, certification etc.
Allied services Launched e–spot Launch a full–scale
like WRF trading of mustard in electronic exchange
Rajasthan for agri–commodities

Build a large scale 3PL

provider catering to
Logistics multiple industries
Entered in primary
processing of spices,
Processing dry–fruits, groundnuts

Build a large scale play

Launched branded  export of
Branding and in retail and
spices and dry fruits
retailing agri–commodities

Sources: Industry interview; press search.

T B C G | 

 S    
    
 
Warehouse businesses can be of varied types,
offering different services, serving different
geographies, and catering to different sets of
customers. A player needs to make strategic
choices on multiple dimensions which are
listed below:
• Services to be offered: Several choices are
available in services offered to customers:
 Only storage facility: Within storage, a
provider can either be a generic player
with basic preservation facility, or a
highly specialized storage provider
focusing on a particular crop. However,
as of today, the need for specialized
storage is limited to horticulture and
players are focusing mainly on generic
storage, leading to better asset utilization
and hedging against crop–specific risk.
 Storage along with allied services like
procurement, testing and certification,
warehousing receipt finance etc.
 An integrated third–party logistics
provider: Build a large–scale third–party
logistics business catering to the end–
to–end logistic needs of companies.
• Customers: The requirement for the kind of
warehouse and allied services varies across
customers:
 Farmers: In India, a majority of farmers
are marginal growing small quantities
of produce. They are highly sensitive to
price and prefer warehouses closer to
the local mandis. The need for
sophisticated storage offerings is yet to
evolve. Hence, warehouses catering to
this segment have to be very small with
basic storage facility.
 Traders: Traders form a crucial part of
the post–harvest value chain and have
large requirements for good quality
storage. Apart from storage, they
demand additional facilities like testing
and certification, warehousing receipt
finance etc.
 | I A — C F O
 Corporate: With the upsurge of
organized retail, warehousing
requirements of large corporates in the
agricultural business have grown
significantly. Most of these corporates
have a pan–India presence and demand
good quality infrastructure with large–
scale presence. They also require high
investments in sophisticated technology
to ensure efficient supply chain
management.
• Geographic coverage: For a large–scale
warehousing play, very high capital
investments are needed. In the initial stages
of business, two choices pertaining to
geographic coverage can be made, in order
to ensure optimal use of capital:
 A concentrated localized player: Build a
concentrated play in one or two states
in India, with presence across all the
major market places in these states. A
concentrated presence helps in
establishing relationships with the local
government and with intermediaries,
and hence ensures faster capacity
ramp–up. However, the selection of
state/s is critical. It should be based on
multiple factors like trade volumes (of
the major mandis in the state), the level
of competition from other private
players, the kind of crops that are traded
in both kharif and rabi seasons,
prevailing state regulations, and existing
relationships with key stakeholders etc.
 A pan–India player with presence in key
geographies: The other option is to build
warehouses in key geographies like
metros, ports across India and provide
large–scale service to corporates
operating in these specific geographies.
R   

Based on detailed cost–benefit analysis of
various scale options available for a warehouse
player, we recommend three–stage scale up for
a new entrant (see Exhibit 5.8)
• Stage 1: Build a strong presence in a select
geography: A new entrant should focus on
building a strong footprint in one or two
 states with large mandis that have high
volumes of food grains turnover. To
optimally manage capacity, it is very
important to select mandis with large
volumes across both cropping seasons. A
focused geographic approach will help a
new entrant build and expand partnerships
with banks and spot exchanges faster
hence creating opportunities for better
profitability through allied services
offerings.
• Stage 2: Expand footprint and offerings:
Aer establishing a strong presence in one
or two states, the player should expand its
footprint to at least five to six states. Also,
the player must now start leveraging its
[already established] assets to forward
integrate into logistics, food processing,
branding or retailing. The choice of forward
integration would depend on multiple
factors like the size of the opportunity, the
potential to leverage existing capabilities of
the player, etc.
• Stage 3: Build a strong pan–India integrated
play: The last and the final stage is to evolve
into a large, pan–India third–party provider
targeting corporate customers and
expanding to other adjacent industries.

E . | Systematic approach for building a winning warehouse business

Corporate

Traders

Farmers
Corporate
Specialized
Traders 1–2 5–6 Pan
Allied states states India
services Generic
Farmers like WRF
Corporate 3PL
Specialized
Traders 1–2 5–6 Pan
Allied states states India
services Generic
Farmers like WRF
3PL
Specialized  
 
 

1–2 5–6 Pan
Allied states states India  Build a full–scale integrated play
services Generic by expanding pan–India
like WRF  Target corporate customers for

 
  end–to–end supply chain
3PL
 Expand footprint to multiple
management
geographies
 Leverage the established network
 
   
 to expand across the value chain

 such as
 Build strong footprint within 1–2  Transportation, food
states first processing, retail, etc.
 Establish strong connect with
traders to ensure better
capacity utilization
 Build capabilities for multiple
crops across both seasons
 Mitigate risks of a particular
crop failure
 Ensure better utilization of
assets

Source: BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 C   
 
• Multiple revenue streams: A bouquet of
services such as collateral management,
procurement, testing, etc., would provide
additional revenues on top of the earnings
from basic storage services and make the
business economically viable.
• Local market knowledge: Developing deep
understanding of the local ecosystem is
critical to build a successful warehousing
business. To understand and resolve micro/
local issues related to supply chain,
procurement, it is critical for the service
provider to have actual hands–on
experience and knowledge of the relevant
market conditions.
• Strategic tie–ups to ensure better asset
utilization: Strong partnerships with players
like financial institutions and commodity
exchanges will help warehouse players to
better utilize their assets and generate an
additional revenue stream.
• Leveraging assets to exploit adjacent
synergies: Assets built up as part of
warehousing can easily be leveraged to
forward integrate into logistics, food
processing, branding, and retailing. For
example, Shree Shubham Logistics is
leveraging its fixed assets effectively by
forward integrating into branding and
retailing of spices.
L
The logistics sector in India is at an inflexion
point. The strong growth in manufacturing,
coupled with the high economic growth rate of
between 8 and 9 percent per annum being
experienced in India, throws open a plethora
of opportunities for the logistics sector.
Logistics, an approximately Rs. 6,300 billion
industry, has grown at around 12 percent per
annum in the last five years (see Exhibit 5.9).
Strong growth enablers exist for logistics. These
include infrastructure development, growth in
organized retail, and a flourishing food
processing industry. Further, strong inflows of
FDI into sectors like electronics and automobiles
have led to increased market opportunity and
a strong growth rate for the organized logistics
sector.
 | I A — C F O
The logistics sector in India is still at a nascent
stage especially logistics focused on the
agriculture sector. Therefore, we are yet to see
the emergence of logistics players that focus
on agriculture alone. Most players’ in this space
have portfolios focused on multiple sectors,
where agriculture is one amongst many end–
user sectors.
T– ,  
  I
Third–party logistics (3PL) is a concept where
a single logistics provider manages end–to–
end logistics for a firm. The 3PL industry in
India is still nascent and is dominated by basic
offerings. It is a small industry of around Rs. 40
billion to Rs. 50 billion and is expected to grow
between 15 and 25 percent in the next five
years. The 3PL offerings in India are still very
basic in nature with 90 percent of the market
dominated by offerings like using a single
provider for both transportation and logistics,
with few value–added services. The share of
value–added services like inventory
management, supply chain optimization,
integration with client IT systems etc., is still
small.
K   I 
• High competition from unorganized
players: Organized players are facing stiff
competition from the unorganized players
that provide basic logistics services at highly
competitive rates.
• High operating costs due to poor
infrastructure: Poor road infrastructure
leads to a series of problems for the logistics
players. It leads to higher usage of fuel,
greater turnaround time, and higher
maintenance costs. In the end, all these
factors push up the operating costs for the
players.
• Non–conducive government regulations:
(a) Current tax structures and tax breaks
for logistics players do not support large
investments in logistics that require longer
gestation periods. (b) Land acquisition plays
a critical role in building an effective
logistics play. However, under the current
regulatory environment, it is very difficult
to acquire a large portion of land for setting
up a logistics business.
 E . | Landscape of Indian logistics industry

Asia Pacific logistics market growing faster than rest of the world

 
!"" Rest of
the world 3.2%1 ,&"(+
#""

,&&%+
$""

,#)+
%""

&""

"
%""" %""& %""% %""$ %""# %""! %""' %""( %"") %""* %"&" %"&& %"&%

Strong fundamentals driving organized logistics growth in India

  CAGR (’06–’11)
)""" .


-

 '$"" +12.3% Growth drivers
   


'"""

#!""   

 
#"""  
)#+ +9.7%
 
 

*"+    
%"""
&"+
"
%""*
Sources: Datamonitor market research, CB Richard Ellis.
Note: According to Datamonitor research, logistics market is composed of all in–house and outsourced expenditure from transportation, distribution and
management of retail, consumer electronics, automotive, hi–tech and pharmaceuticals sector.
1
Rest of world logistics market growth CAGR (2005–09).
F –  
     
Multiple companies are trying to capture the
3PL opportunity (see Exhibit 5.10). Companies
like TCI and Safexpress with sizable
warehousing and logistics assets are trying to
enter the 3PL space, in order to improve
margins and ensure better utilization of assets.
These categories of asset–based integrated
players are seeking to capture the largest share
of the 3PL opportunity riding on existing large
asset base which would require significant
capital and time for new entrants to replicate.
Similarly, players such as TVS, Mahindra,
Videocon, Future Logistics, and Reliance
 
&'+ +36.6%
%"&&
Logistics are leveraging in–house logistics
capabilities to cash in on the 3PL opportunity.
All of these players are focusing on building
multi–commodity–based 3PL businesses in
order to ensure better asset utilization. Focused
logistics play only for agri–commodities will
take time to evolve, as the demand for
specialized logistics by food processing and
retailing companies is still quite low to justify
such a focused approach. However, there is
demand for specialized logistics from both
food processing companies and retail. In future,
we see the emergence of focused agri–based
logistics players.
T B C G | 
 E . | Players entering into 3PL industry in India

 Typically large players with  Trying to leverage

 ( &   
small margins trying to logistics capabilities,
increase asset utilization existing relationships
 Likely to capture largest 3PL CEP Shipping, MTO and assets to capture
share in the future 3PL opportunity

 "# $

% 
$  &    '   & 
 

Trucking

) *# Construction
   
Warehousing

  

      
! 

 Leveraging in–house
logistics capabilities and  Trying to capture the
benefit from internal base Automotive FMCG Retail emerging opportunity
to better utilize assets  Significant investment
 However, interest conflict in and capability
In– &
potentially optimizing development required
competitors’ supply chain

Sources: Analyst reports (Cushman Wakefield 08, Enam 07, Frost & Sullivan); Market interviews; BCG analysis.

K    PL 
Key success factors for building a large and
successful 3PL play:
• Build scale and optimize logistics
operations: While building the initial
network of warehouses and transportation,
3PL players should carefully examine the
prospective client base and set up a network
where it would be possible to share the
established asset across multiple clients
and to have better asset utilization.
• Ability to up–sell value added services: 3PL
players should build industry expertise by
focusing on certain industries with high
scope for supply chain optimization. Players
should set up the right infrastructure, IT
systems, and manpower to cater to target
industries.
• Access to high quality sub–contractors: In
order to reduce upfront investment in
warehouses and transportation networks,
3PL players can tie up with other high–
quality sub–contractors and leverage their
asset base.
NOTE:
1. With the India government introducing the Negotiable
Warehouse Receipt System (NWRs), farmers can seek
loans from banks against the warehouse receipts issued
to them against storage.
2. Incremental rate of return.

 | I A — C F O

 FOOD PROCESSING,
BRANDING AND RETAILING
I ’    growing at a
fast pace. In order to keep pace with the
increasing demand for agriculture and
horticulture produce, India needs to improve
its food processing capabilities. It is increasingly
becoming evident that only a vibrant food
processing and retailing sector can lead to
increasing farm–gate prices, thereby increasing
income levels, reducing wastages and increasing
employment.
Food Processing Industry
For an agrarian economy like India, food
processing is an important sector as it provides
a strong link between agriculture and the end–
consumer. Food processing is a set of methods
and techniques used to transform raw
agricultural produce into a form that can be
consumed directly. It involves any type of value
addition to agriculture or horticulture produce
that enhances shelf–life of the food product.
The food processing industry is made up of
two kinds of processing.
• Primary processing: It includes conversion
of raw farm output to intermediate
commodity consumables with activities
like shelling, hulling, milling, polishing,
crushing, packing etc. It is required for
certain farm products only — cereals, pulses
and oilseeds. Examples of primary
processed food sold to the end–consumer
include packaged fruits and vegetables,
packaged milk, milled rice, flour, tea, coffee,
sugar, pulses, spices, and salt.
• Value–added processing: It includes
conversion of raw or intermediate farm
output to value–added products with
activities like flour milling, baking,
fortification, refining etc. Examples of
value–added processed food sold to end–
consumers include juices, jams, pickles,
squashes, concentrate, ghee, paneer, cheese,
butter, ethnic Indian products, branded
edible oil, breads, biscuits, snack foods,
pasta–based foods, processed meat, poultry,
marine products confectionery and
chocolates, beer, spirits, wine, aerated, and
malted beverages.
The potential for growth in food processing
is enormous. Indian agriculture has the
unique advantage of a large and varied raw
material base for food processing. India can
emerge as a leading food processor and
supplier to the world if this advantage is
leveraged optimally.
Food processing is a highly fragmented
industry. There are over 700,000 registered
food processing units — 25 percent of these
are unorganized players, 42 percent fall in the
Small Scale Industries (SSI) category and the
remaining 33 percent are organized players.
The unorganized and SSI players are small in
their individual capacity, but account for 70
T B C G | 
 percent of the output in terms of volume and
50 percent in value. Though the organized
sector is comparatively small, it is growing at a
rapid pace.
Food processing is a Rs. 5,500 billion industry
in India and has been growing at the rate of 10
percent per annum for the last seven years
(see Exhibit 6.1). The proportion of food
processing within each food category is very
low in India as compared with other developed
nations. India accounts for just around 1.5
percent of the global processed food trade.
F    
• Growing urbanization: India is witnessing
rapid urbanization which is linked to the
country’s economic growth and foreign
direct investment. The growth in
urbanization is leading to a change in food
habits. People are demanding more
convenience and have increased spends on
processed ready–to–eat food.
• Increasing income levels: This is leading to
higher spends on food, as well as a switch
E . | Food processing industry at a very nascent stage in India
 
from staples to animal protein and
processed food.
• Social changes: Increasing number of
working women, growing health
consciousness, and the need for convenience
is going to drive the growth of the food
processing industry in India.
• Organized retail: The rapid growth of
organized retail provides the much–needed
forward integration, leading to easy
availability of processed foods.
K 
• Input supply assurance: Uncertainty related
to availability, price and quality of raw
material is one of the key challenges faced
by the Indian food processing industry.
Availability and price of the agriculture
produce in India is impacted by a range of
external factors such as heavy rainfall,
drought, pests and diseases, etc. Poor
farming practices, poor handling of produce,
and inadequate quality control have lead to
poor quality raw material.


   


     



  
  
         !   


 
   
6,000 40
5,500 35%
5,000 30
+10% 4,550
21%
4,150 20
4,000 3,750
3,400 10 8%
3,100 6%
2,850 2%
0
F&V Milk Buffalo Poultry Marine
and its meat products
2,000 products

. 65% in USA . 60% in developed

. 78% in Philippines countries
. 23% in China
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Level of processing in other nations

Sources: India Stat, MOFPI Annual report.

 | I A — C F O

• Inadequate infrastructure: One of the
biggest impediments to the growth of the
food processing industry is inadequate
infrastructure. A key constraint experienced
in the post–harvest handling of all the
perishable agriculture commodities is the
absence of an efficient cold chain, including
on–farm storage facility. This not only leads
to wastage but also adversely impacts the
quality of inputs. High wastage adds to the
total cost of raw material, ultimately
affecting the competitiveness of the Indian
food processing industry.
• Preference for regional tastes: India has a
very diverse population, with each region
and sub–region in India characterized by
distinct food traditions, preferences, and
taste. Many regional preparations are made
with specific raw materials available only
in the region, and tastes best when fresh.
• Issues in meeting global quality standards:
India has only a 1.5 percent share in the
global trade of processed food. One main
reason is the inability of local producers to
adhere to environmental and safety standards
acceptable in the developed countries.
Export competitiveness of the food processing
industry depends upon access to the
developed world markets. The issues of
traceability in fresh produce and poor
hygiene are the biggest impediments to the
food processor in meeting global quality
standards. For example, mango weevil in
Indian mango pulp has affected its export to
the United States, Japan, and the European
Union. The major handicap is Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, relating to the
presence of pesticides that are used to get rid
of mango weevil. Japan had banned Indian
mangos in 1986 on suspected pest infestation
by fruit flies, followed by the United States
and the European Union. The Indian
Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) and
other research bodies worked on eliminating
the risk of fruit flies and came up with vapor
heat treatment. Japan formally lied the ban
on import of Indian mangoes in June 2006.
W   
At present, a large part of food processing in
India includes primary processing for
commodities with limited value–addition.
Most businesses are operating on cost–plus
basis with small margins. In order to bolster
margins, it is important to forward or backward
integrate businesses. Also, there is a need to
move toward secondary processing with a
unique value–addition in order to differentiate
the product and charge a premium. Profitability
of value–added processing players varies
widely, depending on the level of processing.
Commodity players (like those that produce
F&V, mushrooms, and herbs) primarily focus
on volumes with lower margins, whereas
value–added products like edible oil and
cereals attract higher margins, but generate
lower volume (see Exhibit 6.2).
G   
 
A financial outlay of 50 billion from the
government has been planned in the 11th Five
Year Plan period for setting up food parks,
integrated cold chain infrastructure, as detailed
below:
• Integrated food parks: The government
plans to set up 30 integrated food parks
during the 11th plan period at a (proposed)
collective outlay of Rs. 15 billion. Keeping
the high risks involved in the food processing
business in mind, the 11th plan proposes a
government grant of 75 percent of the
project cost in general areas and 90 percent
in difficult areas with an upper limit of Rs.
500 million.
• Support for establishing cold chains and
distribution infrastructure: The government
plans to invest Rs. 2.1 billion to support
cold chain infrastructure projects over the
next five years. A provision of Rs. 5.5 billion
is proposed for supplementing the initiatives
of the Container Corporation of India,
Indian Railways, and private players in
establishing a network of integrated cold
chains and six strategic distribution centers
in cities with high consumption.
A relaxed regulatory environment has been
established to provide greater impetus to food
processing in India. These initiatives include:
• The National Food Processing Policy has
created an enabling environment by setting
targets for the next five years:
T B C G | 
 E . | Profitability of different food processing players

Commodity players have high turnover

F&V, mushrooms, herbs, dry fruits, pickles Cereals, edible oils

 

  


 . /  , /
,  ," .  ,"

 


%





  %

  %

 

# " $   #,  -  

  !" ""  + #,  
   )(* 
      (   " 
      & ' "  

Value–added processing players more profitable

F&V, mushrooms, herbs, dry fruits, pickles Cereals, edible oils

   
  0 . /  
0 , /
,  ," .  ,"



0

0
%0 %0
%0

 0
0
0
 

# " $   #,  -  

      )(* 
  !" ""  + #,  
   & ' "  
      (   " 

Source: Capitaline.
Note: All figures for 2011.

 | I A — C F O

  The level of processing of perishables to
increase to 20 percent from the current
6 percent
 Value–addition to increase to 35 percent
from the current 20 percent
 Share in global food trade to increase to
3 percent from the present 1.5 percent
• Several steps are proposed to be taken in
order to implement the Food Safety and
Standards Bill, 2006
 84 labs are proposed to be revitalized/
upgraded during the 11th Five Year
Plan
 500 cases may be supported
obtaining ISO / HACCP approval
E   
 
On a global scale, food processing is a large
E . | Examples of global food processing companies
Sources: Bloomberg, Annual Reports, BCG analysis.
Note: Revenue for year 2011 except for Cargill and Dole where it is for year 2010.
1
Return on Invested Capital range for last 5 years.
2
Return on Equity range for last 5 years.
industry with high levels of processing. In
developed countries like the United States,
almost 60 percent of the food consumed is
processed food. Several companies like Dole
and Cargill have built a large and profitable
business in food processing (see Exhibit 6.3).
I    

Several Indian players are making in–roads to
tap the food processing opportunity in India.
Many large players like ITC have forayed into
the processing of multiple commodities like
spices, grains, coffee, marine products. Players
like Ruchi Soya have built a large–scale, oil
processing set–up with complete backward
integration. Others have also invested in
creating brands for different product categories.
for (see Exhibit 6.5)
M   
 
Different food processing companies follow
different business models. The choice of value
T B C G | 
 DOLE: A FULLYINTEGRATED F&V PLAYER
Dole is a leading global producer, marketer, and distributor
of fresh fruits and vegetables, including a line of value–
added F&V products. The company operates a fully–
integrated model (including sourcing, growing, processing,
distributing, and marketing), holding number one or
number two share positions in the categories in which it
participates. Overall the agriculture portfolio of the
company comprises three categories:
• Fresh fruits account for US$4.8 billion in revenues for
the company. Dole is a leading player in the banana,
fresh pineapple, grapes, apple, and kiwi market. The
company has established large–scale ripening and
distribution operations in the Europe.
• Fresh vegetables account for US$1 billion in revenues.
Dole’s portfolio primarily consists of fresh produce
like lettuce, celery, broccoli, etc., and fresh–packed
vegetables and salad.
• Packaged food accounts for US$1.1 billion in revenues.
Dole’s portfolio primarily consists of canned fruits,
fruits bowl, juices, etc.
E . | Dole’s business model
Sources: Company website, Analyst reports, BCG analysis.
 | I A — C F O
Dole has built a unique fully–integrated model in the F&V
space. Dole sources most of its fresh fruits from its own
plantations in Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Honduras. It has
leased out land for vegetable farming and also operates
plantations in Asia. Due to the perishable nature of its
products, the company has invested heavily in building
specialized and dedicated refrigerated containerized fleet
for shipping the fresh produce across the world.
Apart from this, the company has forward integrated into
fruit ripening, processing plants for salads, and canneries
for packaged food (Dole business model evolution
illustrated in Exhibit 6.4). Dole has built a strong brand
imagery in fresh F&V segment by investing heavily in
marketing and branding its products for retail.
Key success factors for Dole have been three–fold:
• Efficient supply chain: Dole has invested heavily in
building a “closed–loop” cold storage supply chain
with 60 processing and ripening centres, 25 ships and
approximately 14,800 refrigerated containers, and port
facilities in each of the countries it operates out of.
 DOLE: A FULLYINTEGRATED F&V PLAYER

• Global scale and multiple products: Dole has
developed a diversified sourcing option and product
lines to de–risk itself from country–specific factors.
For instance, the company sources bananas from the
Americas, vegetables largely from the United States,
deciduous and citrus fruits from Chile, New Zealand,
and South Africa. This way, the business is minimally
impacted in case there are problems with sourcing a
particular input from one country. The same ‘de–
risking’ strategy works when Dole markets its products
in several countries across the globe.
• Universal brand: The company has invested heavily
in marketing and branding in order to build a single,
universal “Dole” brand with a strong recall across
the world. For long associated with pineapples, the
“Dole” brand has been extended across the
portfolio.

E . | Example of leading Indian companies in food processing industry

Sources: Annual Reports, Press search, Capitaline, Valuescience center.

Note: Figures for year 2010.
1
For farm inputs: primarily a partnership model where farm inputs are provided by third–parties with these firms coordinating the overall process.

chain segment plays a critical role in
determining the success of a food processing
business. The value chain segment is also
dependent on the end–product the food
processing unit is manufacturing. Four kinds of
business models have been observed in this
sector:
• An integrated input and farm management
play: A set of food processing players have
backward integrated into farm management
and provide farm inputs like seeds and
fertilizers to have better control over quality
and quantity of the raw material used.
Backward integration into farming inputs
and farm management is critical for
businesses where the raw input for food
processing forms a critical source of
differentiation. For instance, Pepsi is
involved in contract farming for potatoes to
procure a particular quality input for its
chips. Through contract farming, Pepsi is

T B C G | 

 providing the required seeds, fertilizers and
other inputs to farmers so that it can procure
the desired quality of produce.
• Direct procurement from farmers: For
businesses with highly commoditized, products,
lower cost becomes an important source of
differentiation. For such commoditized
processed food products, lowering cost
through direct procurement from farmers
not only helps in lowering raw material
costs but also helps in reducing wastage by
providing tighter control along the supply
chain. For instance, ITC has invested heavily
in setting up chaupals for direct procurement
of raw material for atta and spices.
• Focused food processing businesses: Several
players have developed a niche and focused
play in highly specialized and high value–
added food processing. These players have
developed a unique source or formula for
value–added processing to differentiate
themselves from other players. For instance,
MTR differentiates itself by developing
food products catering to the taste–buds of
a particular segment of the Indian society.
E . | Different approach towards integrated branding / marketing
Source: BCG analysis.
 | I A — C F O
• An integrated branding / marketing play:
Different players are following different
approaches toward the level of processing
and the extent of branding (see Exhibit
6.6). On the one hand, players like Agro
Tech Foods Limited, are involved in high
level of processing and have forward
integrated into branding and marketing
for better margins. On the other hand,
players like Adani Farm fresh are involved
only in primary processing of F&V. Adani
Farm Fresh sells its produce wholesale to
other retailers with limited branding. The
forward integration into branding /
marketing requires significant initial
investments in building the brand. It is
more suitable for players like ITC and
Hindustan Unilever Limited, (HUL) with
already established branding and
distribution channels, since they can
leverage the same for their food processing
businesses.
The dimension of forward integration that may
be considered by a food processing player into
branding / marketing depends on three key
levers:
 ITC HAS PRESENCE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE VALUE CHAIN
ITC is one of India’s foremost private sector
companies with a turnover of Rs. 280 billion.
It has diversified presence in sectors such as
cigarettes, hotels, paperboards, packaging,
agribusiness etc. ITC’s agribusiness division
is the country’s second largest exporter of
agri–products with exports of over Rs. 10
billion. Its domestic sales of agri–products
are in excess of Rs. 15 billion. ITC is present
across different processed food products
ranging from wheat flour, ready–to–eat food,
biscuits, chips etc. Each of the businesses
operates in different parts of the value chain
depending on its source of differentiation.
For instance, on the one hand ITC has
1. Product category: There are some product
categories that are more amenable to
branding as compared with others. Branding
plays a crucial role in product categories
such as oil and ready–to–eat food where
the quality of the product cannot be
ascertained easily. In the case of F&V,
branding has a very limited role.
2. Existing capabilities: For players that have
a strong brand and distribution channel, it
is easy to leverage existing capabilities and
enter into the branded food processing
space.
3. Investment: Decision for forward
integrating into branding / marketing
depends heavily on the investment appetite
of the players. Players like Jain Irrigation
have strategically decided to be in the
wholesale business of fruit pulp and juices,
instead of retailing the same.
S    
    

Companies pursuing opportunities in the food
processing space in India first need to
determine the construct of their business
model and then seek to accelerate the
development of the same (as illustrated in
Exhibit 6.7)
outsourced the entire production and
sourcing operation to local food processors
for its ready–to–eat food product category to
cater to the preference for local taste. It
leverages ITC’s large distribution network
and established brand along with stringent
quality check process to build scale in the
product segment. On the other hand, for
Bingo chips the entire process is in–house. It
relies on in–house technology and plants for
the production of Bingo chips in order to
ensure consistency in product quality and
taste. It is also leveraging in–house
production for the development of new
products and innovation.
For a food processing business to succeed,
several choices need to be made along multiple
dimensions. These are enumerated below:
• Value chain segments: Selection of the right
value chain is critical not only to improve
profitability but also to build a competitive
advantage. There are some food processing
businesses where the requirement of inputs
is very specific, whereas there are others
where optimization of input costs is critical
for acquiring a competitive edge in the
market. For example, Pepsi requires
potatoes of certain kind and size for its
chips business to ensure taste of the chips,
whereas for ITC’s wheat flour business it is
important to procure wheat at lowest–
possible cost so as to compete with the
unorganized market. The strategic choice
of the value chain segment would be very
different for both these businesses. The
former would require high level of
integration in farming inputs and farm
management to ensure produce quality.
The latter would require building local
procurement centers and providing
transportation facilities to farmers in order
to bring down procurement cost through
direct procurement.
• Target customer: The choice of customer
segment largely depends on the existing
T B C G | 
 E . | Systematic approach for building a winning food processing business

Developing business model Fast tracking business model

Value–chain segments Entry segments

Which segments to play in? What value–chain
 Farming / farm segments should we
management start with?
 Procurement and SC
 Processing
 Marketing / branding
Economic model
Crop selection
 Owned
Target customer
What crops to target?  Leased
 Cereals Who will we sell to?  Outsourced
 Oil seeds  Retail Business
 Pulses X  Wholesale X X
model
 F&V  Industrial Growth model
 Cash crops  Exports
 Organic
 Size and complexity  Inorganic
including adjacencies  JV / partnership
Revenue model
 Opportunity to
value–add What kind of revenue
 Regulations etc. model should we adopt? Scale / partnership
 Trade–based
 Fee–based  International
 Countrywide
 Local

Source: BCG analysis.

distribution model and the brand or the
appetite to build the same. For companies
like ITC and HUL that have a strong
distribution network and an established
brand, reaching out to the retail customer
segment is easy. Such companies can easily
enjoy higher margins. Other players may
have to wholesale the processed product to
other companies, and play the low margin
but high volume game.
• Revenue model: Most of the food–
processing business models are trade–
based where food processors procure raw
inputs, process it, and sell the finished
goods. However, in some cases where the
sourcing of the raw material requires
special skill / abilities, food processors
prefer the fee–based revenue model. For
instance, in order to be successful in oil
refining and retailing, it is very important
to hedge business against fluctuations of
oil prices in the international markets.
Hence, some food processors have built
refining capacities and have a fee–based
revenue model where they process
oilseeds procured by other companies.
Similarly, ITC has built a unique capability
of procuring cereals at a low price through
its wide e–Chaupal network.
K     
 
• Closeness to source: The proximity of the
food processing industry to raw material
inputs is one of the most important levers
for success given the perishable nature of
the produce. The transportation of raw
materials is not only costlier than that of
processed food but can also lead to excessive
wastage in the event of longer and repeated
handling.
• Low–cost structure: Food processing,
especially primary processing for
commodities is typically a low–margin,
high–volume game. Hence, it is very
important to build low–cost structures by
accessing cheaper sources of inputs — raw
materials, labor, power, and land — by

 | I A — C F O

 utilizing government rebates and subsidies
to the fullest, and also by investing in
technology and equipment to bring down
the overall operational costs.
• Differentiability of finished product:
Specific and more value–added products
command premium prices and offer better
returns on investments.
• Assured consumption centers: A Slowly but steadily, the Government of India is
downstream linkage to wholesale, retail or
the export market provides an assured
revenue stream and prevents wastage.
Food Retail — A Fast Growing
Industry
The current size of the retail market in India is
estimated at Rs. 20,000 billion and is projected
to rise to Rs. 59,000 billion by 2020 (based on
estimates of BCG’s recently published white
paper — Building new India). Organized retail
is currently estimated at Rs. 1,300 billion,
amounting to 6 to 7 percent penetration of the
total retail market and is expected to be a Rs.
8,000 billion to Rs. 12,200 billion industry
depending on multiple factors like income
levels, increase in consumerism, changing
E . | Landscape of food retail industry in India
  
consumer preferences, etc. Within organized
retail, food retailing is expected to grow at a
much faster pace as it is highly unorganized
with current penetration of organized retail
limited to approximately 1 percent, despite 60
percent consumer spending on food and
grocery (see Exhibit 6.8).
Relaxing FDI regulation is drawing international
players
opening up retail to foreign investment. In
1997, for the first time in India’s history, the
government allowed 100 percent foreign
subsidiaries to operate in wholesale cash and
carry business. In 2006, 51 percent FDI
investment was approved in single–brand
retailing. Companies were allowed to sell
multiple products under a single brand name.
In 2008, the government was mulling over the
idea of allowing 100 percent FDI in single–
brand retail and 50 percent in multi–brand
retail. More recently, the Cabinet cleared the
bill to increase FDI to 100 percent in single–
brand retail.
These changes in the regulatory environment
have attracted several international players to
the Indian food retail industry. In 2003,
 

   




  
  
 
 
 

 
 
    

 
 
    
 
!
  


 

   

 

 
   
 
    

   

 
  
 
 
 
   
# " "

Sources: Analysts reports and BCG analysis.

T B C G | 

 Germany–based Metro AG founded ‘Metro
Cash & Carry’ — a wholesale cash and carry
store in India offering bakery, fish, dairy and
other food products. The company currently
caters to business customers like hotels and
caterers on wholesale. In 2007, Bharti and
Walmart entered into a JV to open cash and
carry wholesale stores. The JV currently has
three stores in Punjab and serves small
retailers, manufactures, and farmers. Players
like Carrefour are also planning to start cash
and carry stores in India and are in talks with
local firms for partnerships.
K 
The challenges being faced by the food retailing
industry in India are not just plenty, but quite
substantial in nature. Some of these are
described below:
• High competition from unorganized ‘kirana’
stores: The organized food retailer faces
stiff competition from unorganized kirana
stores. Oen, these kirana shops score high
on convenience as they are mostly located
in their vicinity and are preferred by many
customers especially for small ticket size
purchase. Unorganized retail is oen
preferred by low and middle income
customers due to the short–term credit they
provide.
• Lack of quality post–harvest infrastructure:
Lack of quality post–harvest infrastructure
increases overall procurement and storage
cost for the retailers. Overall cost of goods
for the retailer increases due to high wastage
that occur due to inadequate and poor
quality warehousing infrastructure.
Absence of established 3PL industry and
poor logistics infrastructure leads to higher
operating costs (logistics cost) for the
retailer.
• Fragmented supply base and large number
of intermediaries: Traditional retail has
multiple aggregators, wholesalers, and
retailers, all claiming margins in the value
chain. Fragmented supply base not only
leads to higher prices but also more wastage
due to loading, unloading, and packaging of
commodities at multiple places where it
changes hands from one stakeholder to
another.
 | I A — C F O
• Increasing rentals and food inflation:
Increasing rentals is a major concern for
many food retailers. Margins are getting
squeezed due to increasing cost of goods.
Of the above key challenges faced by the food
retailing industry, few can be resolved through
direct procurement and investment in
agriculture post–harvest infrastructure.
Inefficient post–harvest supply chain is leading
to significant losses and higher price for the
end–consumer
In a traditional supply chain, farmers get only
25 to 30 percent of the price charged to the
end–consumer, with profits being made by
several intermediaries along the value chain.
The fragmented industry structure also results
in low investment in technology and supply
chain management. For instance, a tomato is
procured from the farmer at less than 30
percent of the price at which it is sold to the
end–consumer. A significant portion of this
mark–up is the result of a large number of
intermediaries and the payouts to them during
the several steps in the value chain, as well as
losses due to multiple handling. In the case of
a tomato, approximately 25 percent of the
consumer price is lost in leakages and another
25 percent is earned by intermediaries as
profits (see Exhibit 6.9).
S     
–    
Several companies in India are seeking to build
a large food retail business. Many have moved
into this with a specific focus on the
supermarket opportunity (see Exhibit 6.10)
and have also started strengthening their
backward linkages into the food supply chain.
One such example is Reliance Fresh.
K    I 
 
• Backward integration to assure quality
inputs and lower costs: The existing supply
chain for farm produce involves multiple
handovers between several intermediaries,
leading not only to wastage but also
increases costs for the retailers. Hence,
backward integration into farming or
direct procurement from farmers is critical
to improving margins and efficiency by
reducing wastage. Several players like ITC
E . | Losses in tomato supply chain

   
     


    
  
Essential activities Intermediaries
20
3.26 15.26
(21%) (100%)
15 3.00
(20%)
1.50
10 1.50 (10%)
2.25 (10%)
3.75 (15%)
5 (25%)

0
Farmer Intermediaries Transport and Wholesaling Retailing Losses1 End–customer
packaging price

   


Sources: Market research, trader interviews, BCG analysis.

1
Losses defined as wastage during post–harvest operations, moisture loss, spoilage / damage due to pests, rodents & adverse weather, process losses &
spillage during weighing, packing, handling & transport. Does not include pilferage and mark–downs. Mark–downs loaded at appropriate value–chains stages
as average cost / value increase.

E . | Leading Indian companies in food retail

Sources: Press run; Images retail report; Annual report.

Note: Includes revenue of Food Bazaar as well.

T B C G | 

 and Reliance are procuring directly from order to drive efficiencies and reduce
farmers to differentiate themselves in the wastage. Several players like the Future
market, on cost and quality of the Group, Adani, and Bharti have in–house
produce. supply chain operations.

• Invest in support infrastructure like cold • Leverage technology to optimize processes:

storage, logistics: The agriculture supply
chain in India is at a nascent stage with
limited investments in quality infrastructure
like storage, transportation etc. Third–party
providers in the space are limited. This lack
of adequate infrastructure leads to sizable
losses. It also reduces product quality,
especially in the case of perishables like
fruits and vegetables. Hence, it is crucial to
invest in captive cold chains and logistics in
Players also need to improve demand
forecasting, reduce stock–outs, and increase
sourcing efficiency and product movement
visibility by investing in technologies like
RFID, SAP etc.
• Offer value–added products and focus on
in–store experience: In order to increase
footfalls in stores, players are offering value
added products like a live kitchen.

METRO CASH & CARRY SAVES 20 PERCENT BY DISINTERMEDIATION AND

EFFICIENCIES OF SCALE
In order to improve margins and reduce wastage, several
players are setting up collection centers at mandis for
direct procurement. For instance, Metro Cash & Carry, a
subsidiary of Germany–based Metro AG has set up an
efficient supply–chain leading to significant savings and
21 percent lower price to the end–consumer. The wastage
of produce at the farmer and intermediary levels have
been reduced by as much as 15 percent (as illustrated in
Exhibit 6.11) by training farmers on produce handling,
investment in cold–storage, and refrigerated vans.

E . | Savings made by Metro Cash & Carry through disintermediation

Sources: S. Raghunath and D. Ashok, “Significance of Cash and Carry Model for Small and Medium Businesses in the
Indian Wholesale Distribution Formats,” Metro Cash & Carry Bangalore internal document, October 16, 2006, p. 5.

 | I A — C F O

LEADING RETAIL CHAIN SHIFTED TO THE SECOND SUPPLY CHAIN MODEL
TO PROCURE PRODUCE DIRECTLY FROM THE FARMERS’ FIELD
A leading retail chain has been able to extract higher
margins by sourcing directly from farmers. It has bypassed
several layers of intermediaries by opening up collection
centers in mandis to facilitate farmers selling their produce
directly to the company. The chain has collection centers
closer to the produce for direct procurement, and has its
own processing / distribution centers closer to the
market.
However, the company found several limitations with the
model. Typically, large farmers with large quantities of produce
visit the mandis directly and sell it at the collection centre.
Majority of the small farmers with limited produce sell their
produce to the intermediary who collects the produce directly
from their villages. Despite knowledge of better prices at the
E . | Supply chain of a leading retailer
Sources: Literature search and BCG analysis.
collection centers, these farmers prefer selling the produce to
intermediaries since the entire logistics costs — from village
to mandis — is very high and not economically–viable for their
smaller produce quantity.
In order to circumvent this issue and to reach out to smaller
farmers, the company has shied to a second supply chain
model of procuring directly from the farm (see Exhibit 6.12).
With the new supply chain model, it has set up its collection
centers directly in the villages, and collects produce directly
from the farmers. All the collected produce is aggregated at
the processing centers where it gets sorted, graded, and
processed. Post–processing, the chain not only distributes
its produce to its outlets but also wholesales it to other
players.
T B C G | 
SYNTHESIS AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
Over the past few years, India has captured the
imagination of the world, by posting strong
GDP growth figures, attracting foreign capital,
and increasing its presence as a global player.
While the growth has been limited to a few
sectors, and has not been inclusive, India finds
itself at a point where it can choose to rectify
its growth journey.
A CII — WEF study (2005) had come up with
three scenarios for India till 2025:
1. “Atakta Bharat”: Marked by low growth, and
a weak domestic economy, India will not be
able to sustain the healthy growth rates,
and will revert to the “Hindu” growth rate.
In this scenario, the goal of inclusive growth
is clearly not achieved.
2. “Bollyworld”: Many will identify with this
scenario as India’s story till now. Stellar
growth is achieved in certain sectors, while
the rest of India lags behind. Motivated by
short–term gains, we fail to invest in long–
term opportunities, faltering to growth rates
of 6 to 8 percent in the future.
3. “Pahale India”: This path will take us to the
elusive inclusive growth, the path where
everyone works towards India’s future.
Marked by broad–based inclusive growth,
this will create a strong internal economy to
weather global slowdowns.
 | I A — C F O
The end goal of inclusive growth will only be
possible through:
1. Fostering entrepreneurship to ensure
growth across the strata
2. Greater participation of the masses, to
target all the sections
3. Strong policy reforms, aimed to remove the
obstacles to growth
Agriculture — Vision 2020
When we talk about inclusive growth,
agriculture is perhaps one of the most important
focus areas. It comprises approximately 15
percent of India’s GDP, supports other industries
by providing inputs, and employs nearly 57
percent of the workforce (predominantly rural)
as shown in Exhibit 7.1. The economic well–
being of this populace (that directly or indirectly
depends on agriculture) is critical to India’s
growth journey. Inclusive growth will have to
focus on agriculture due to the large potential
impact. Also, great gains can be made by
removing the current inefficiencies that ail
India’s agri–sector.
Agriculture in India must be transformed by
an era of strong–growth that is driven by:
1. Strong growth in Indian yield levels, and
hence overall output: The increase in output
 E . | Role of agriculture in Indian context

Agriculture — a significant part of economy And one of the biggest employers

 
       
   
 

 

  


 


 

 

 
  

 
  

 



 

Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI)
may be as much as 30 to 40 percent for
cereals and fruits and vegetables (F&V) and
100 percent for meat, oilseeds, and pulses,
based on relative competitive advantages
in each of these areas.
2. Greater share of commercial crops: Land
under commercial crops must rise to 35 to
40 percent from the current 32 percent,
increasing share of high–value crops.
3. Higher food processing levels: Quantum
leap in the levels of processing (for example,
F&V — 20 to 30 percent, dairy — 40 to 50
percent).
This growth will be based on a solid foundation
of policy and regulatory reforms, technology,
and business model innovations, investments
in capacity building, as well as public–private
partnerships. Also, Indian stakeholders
(corporate, government etc.), need to be
selective on determining which of these
activities need to be done in India versus
leveraging potential resources in other
countries, for example, plantations in South
East Asia.
I  
The current yields are woefully behind global
levels, due to poor crop variety, lack of modern
technology and farming practices, as well as
dearth of irrigation. Focus on these areas will
help improve yields to global levels (illustrated
in Exhibit 7.2), thereby securing India’s food
supply and leading to better farm incomes and
higher on–farm employment. In our attempt
to quantify our vision, we seek to present a
picture of what Indian yields and outputs will
look like. The calculations are based on Indian
yields increasing their rank in the global yield
ranking to the top 20 to 50 (depending upon
the current rank). The benefits of an increased
yield are not only production, but also freeing
up demand for one of the most precious
resources — land.
L 
Increase in yield will free up land, helping
drive down requirement for land. The freeing
up of the land under food grains will help drive
up the share of land for high–value crops (such
as horticulture and cash crops like cotton and
tobacco) to almost 35 to 36 percent from the
current 32 percent. The consequent increases
T B C G | 
 E . | Vision for Indian yield and production levels

Focus on farming will improve yields Leading to substantial rise in output

1
Agri — Yields (2010 vs. 2020) Agri — Production (2010 vs. 2020)

       
25 500

15–20%
20 400 25–35% 30–40%
16–17
14.0 270–300
15 300 260–280

203 205
10 200
35–45% 100–130%
140–150% 85–95%
130–160%
100–120%
5 3–3.2 100
2.5 1.9–2.0 55–65
1.6–1.7 33–38
0.9 1.3 15 25
6 12–13
0 0
Cereals Pulses Oilseeds F&V Cereals Pulses Oilseeds F&V Meat

2010 2020

Sources: Indiastat, FAOstat, National Horticultural Board, NMCE report on oilseeds, India Vision 2020 — R. Radhakrishna and K Reddy, BCG analysis.
Note: The above projections are based on our analysis of the potential rise in India’s production levels.
1
Yield figures are best on global benchmarking, we compared Indian yields with other countries.

in high–value crops will supplement the
existing income of farmers (see Exhibit 7.3).
F 
While food processing in India is quite behind
global levels, our vision is for it to go through a
sea change by 2020 driven by:
1. Higher government support
2. Establishment of infrastructure
billion by 2020. This would also have a spillover
effect on the entire agribusiness industry,
leading to growth at approximately 8 percent
and a GDP contribution of Rs. 36,000 billion by
2020. Steps in the right direction would serve
as “cogs” in the wheels, driving our overall
economic growth to about 9 percent, leading
India’s GDP to a size of Rs. 140,000 billion by
2020 compared to Rs. 59,000 billion in 2010
(see Exhibit 7.5).

3. Entry of private and organized players Imperatives for Key Players

4. Greater demand for convenience foods
The above factors will take Indian food
processing to new heights, placing it in a
comparable position globally (illustrated in
Exhibit 7.4).
Driving Overall Growth
The step change growth achieved in India’s
agri–sector will be the primary driver for
growing our agri–GDP at a sustained rate of 5
to 6 percent, reaching approximately Rs. 17,000
Indian agriculture clearly holds considerable
promise to improve the lives of millions of
farmers and propel the economy. Significant
bottlenecks exist in achieving this potential,
and unfortunately there is no silver bullet. In
order to realize Indian agriculture’s true
capability, coordinated and tenacious efforts
will be required by both policy makers as
well as private players. In this section, we
draw upon the key issues that have been
identified thus far to distil imperatives for
policy makers and private players, and also
elaborate on the potential of public–private
partnerships.

 | I A — C F O

E . | Vision for Indian agri–land cropping patterns

      
          
 

  
               
     
  
150 –11% 100
8% 8–11%
129
111–117 80 24%
26 27–28%
100 21–22
28 60
18–19

29 30–32 40
50 68% 62–64%

20
46 42–44

0 0
2011 2020 2011 2020

Rice Wheat Coarse cereals Pulses Food grains Commercial Fruits and
crops vegetables

Sources: Indiastat, FAOstat, National Horticultural Board, NMCE report on oilseeds, India Vision 2020 — R. Radhakrishna and K Reddy, BCG analysis.
Note: The above projections are based on our analysis of the potential rise in India’s production levels.
1
Yield figures are best on global benchmarking, we compared Indian yields with other countries.

E . | Vision for Indian food processing levels

Food processing levels — India

   
  
60

40–50% 40–50%
45
35% 30–40%

30 20–30%
21% 18–22%

15
8%
6%
2%
0
Fresh produce / Dairy Buffalo meat Poultry Marine products
Fruits and vegetables
2004 2020

Sources: Indiaagristat, India Vision 2020 — Planning Commission, MOFPI reports, MOFPI annual report, BCG analysis.
Note: As per Ministry of Food Processing vision for processing levels.

T B C G | 

 E . | Driving overall growth through agriculture

2
Economy (Rs. billion)
3


2 
Economic
growth

Agribusiness  
growth

  

Agribusiness1 (Rs. billion)

1
Agri–GDP (Rs. billion)

Agriculture
growth

 
 


  
  

Sources: Datamonitor Agricultural products in India, India Brand Equity Foundation, World Economic forum, NCAER, RBI database on Indian economy, BCG
analysis.
Note: Fixed exchange rate of Rs. 45 to 1 USD taken.
1
Does not include non–food cash crops such as jute, cotton, tobacco; includes only food crops: cereals, pulses, oilseeds, F&V, sugar, tea, coffee etc.
2
Assuming industry and services grow along historical growth rates of 9% and 10% respectively (observed over 2005–10 period)

I   
Political will and cooperation has been a
critical component of all agricultural
‘revolutions’. It will play a key role even now, in
order to bring about the next revolution. In
fact, without political will, the agricultural
sector is unlikely to see any dramatic change.
We have highlighted select imperatives across
the entire agricultural landscape that need to
be undertaken on a war footing.
Policy and regulatory reforms
Liberalize procurement: The government’s
attempt to liberalize marketing through the
Model APMC Act has not yielded expected
results. The implementation of the Model Act
has been done selectively, and does not retain
its spirit. There is thus an urgent need to
standardize and ensure implementation of this
Act. The process of acquiring a license for
direct procurement / marketing, needs to be
simplified to a single, unified, national license,
i.e., there should be no separate license for
procurement, storage, warehousing etc. The
Essential Commodities Act should also be
scrapped to allow free inter–state movement
of commodities.
Reform Minimum Support Price (MSP) norms:
Procurement at MSP should be done only
when prices go below the MSP, and only
quantities enough for buffer stocks and social
schemes should be procured — and that too at
market prices. A fair and remunerative price,
ensuring similar incomes as wheat / rice, and
assuming cost of cultivation as for irrigated
lands, will encourage farmers to shift to pulses
and also invest in irrigation.

 | I A — C F O

Redesign subsidies to ensure sustainable use
of inputs: Current subsidy schemes encourage
indiscriminate use of inputs like power, water,
and fertilizers. These could be redesigned to
encourage judicious usage without impacting
productivity or costs. The micro irrigation
equipment subsidy is a step in the right
direction. However, farmers are more likely to
respond to productivity gains than sustainability.
It would thus be crucial to educate farmers on
yield gains from appropriate use of inputs.
Link agri–credit with crop insurance to manage
default risks: Cost–effective and efficient
insurance schemes can encourage banks to
provide credit which allows farmers to invest in
farm productivity thus creating a virtuous cycle.
Such insurance schemes are already in place in
countries like Brazil. The premium could be
shared by the lending institution and also be
partly subsidized. Reforms are also required in
agriculture–lending practices to ensure that
small, and marginal farmers have access to
credit. Instead of total volume, priority sector
lending targets should be defined in terms of
the number of people and the type of credit
(working capital, capital formulation etc).
Capacity building
Launch a national awareness program to
promote best practices: It is interesting to note
that hybrids capable of best–in–class yields
already exist for select crops and agro–climatic
zones. However, the yields realized by farmers
have been significantly lower. Agricultural
extension is thus one of the most potent
solutions for yield enhancement. A cohesive
national awareness drive involving research
institutions, state administration, and the
private sector is required to increase awareness
of the best practices in farming. Practices like
Systems of Rice Intensification (SRI) have
already demonstrated 20 to 50 percent increase
in yield and should be encouraged.
Promote land aggregation measures:
Fragmented land holdings in India are an
impediment to agricultural extension. This can
be overcome through land aggregation via
lease–based models that zealously safeguard
the land ownership of farmers, while bringing
in large–scale investments in agri–infrastructure
from the private sector. Contract farming is
also an effective way to infuse best practices
and provide assured returns to farmers.
However, contract standardization and
enforcement need attention in order to protect
interests of both parties. Growth of producer
companies should also be encouraged as it
provides both business orientation and all the
benefits of co–operatives. Some successful
examples include Ma–suta Producers Company
and Zameen Organic. Finally, wasteland
development should be used to pilot
commercial farming (over 500 hectares) in
order to leverage India’s cultivable wasteland
(approximately 13 million hectares) and scale.
R&D investments in hybrids and developing a
process for GM seeds: A key factor behind the
success of the Green Revolution was the high
yielding variety of wheat hybrid imported from
Mexico, which was later indigenized. Focus is
now required on local development of hybrids
suited for Indian conditions. This could be
achieved by setting up a dedicated fund to
promote R&D and by introducing R&D cost
subsidies to encourage private participation.
GM seeds can provide a fillip to productivity, as
in the case of cotton, but needs to be thoroughly
tested to safeguard public interests. A world–
class safety standard and approval process
should be put in place to fairly test GM seeds.
I   
Develop innovative business models: India is a
unique market, and business models that
worked in other markets may not necessarily
be relevant here. Business model innovations
like catering to the ‘bottom of the pyramid’
have reaped rich rewards for players in the
past. The telecom sector is a stellar example of
how innovations can lead to additions of
millions of subscribers each month. This report
has highlighted opportunities to develop
innovative business models such as those
based on the increasing convergence of agri–
inputs. While large white spaces exist across
the agriculture value chain, business model
innovations will play a key role in bringing
about the next revolution in agriculture.
Customize and transfer best–in–class practices:
Relatively smaller countries like Egypt and
Israel have developed agri–practices that have
enabled them to enjoy world–class yields in
many crops. Given some of the similarities in
agro–climatic zones between these countries
T B C G | 
 and India, there exists significant scope to
understand, customize, and transfer such
practices to India. Contract farming provisions
are gradually being strengthened in India, and
players that are successful at transferring such
practices will benefit significantly.
Undertake joint R&D with government
bodies: Embrapa, the key agri–research
organization of Brazil, routinely works with
global giants like Monsanto and Syngenta to
jointly develop inputs and farming
technologies. Such technologies are also
jointly marketed through a combination of
government and private resources to increase
farm penetration. This is a highly symbiotic
relationship as it draws on a larger body of
expertise, lends credibility to the proposed
technologies (due to government
participation), and leverages the state
administration for distribution of the same.
Private players would thus do well to seek
out opportunities for joint efforts with state
agricultural universities and research
institutes.
P P P
Create agri–parks to develop a conducive
ecosystem
Establishing agri–parks through Public Private
Partnerships (PPP) could stimulate agricultural
productivity and address key inefficiencies.
The government should focus on ensuring
availability of critical inputs and access to
information and best practices in these agri–
parks. The private sector would make
investments in storage, processing
infrastructure, and provide forward marketing
linkages (exports etc). It is critical to note that
agri–parks would not result in transfer of land
ownership.
Agri zone–based PPP model: Agri zones could
be an effective means of blending public and
private sector initiatives. These will be
geographically demarcated zones comprising
of key producer states of a certain crop (see
Exhibit 7.8). The objectives of these zones will
be two–fold:
• Improving production by offering an
enabling infrastructure, agricultural
extension, and focused R&D support
• Addressing market failures by enabling
private investments and improving
regulatory framework
Farmers in other states will continue to have
the freedom in crop selection and each state
would be part of multiple agri zones to allow
farmers flexibility in crop selection.

BRAZIL  THE AGRICULTURE REVOLUTION

Brazil today is in an enviable position in global
agriculture and is the leading producer and exporter of
key global commodities (see Exhibit 7.6). The credit for
this is usually given to ‘structural’ advantages enjoyed
by Brazil, such as farm sizes (commercial operations
produce approximately 75 percent of the output), water
resources (Brazil has the world’s largest renewable
water resources, larger than Asia) and smaller
population (approximately 20 percent of India’s
population) that leads to higher marketable surplus.
However, one of the biggest contributors to agricultural
growth in Brazil has been the focus on agricultural
research and government focus.
Embrapa, the state–owned Brazilian research
corporation, has improved the productivity of crops (see
Exhibit 7.7) and converted large tracts of grasslands into
cultivable land that account for approximately 70 percent
of Brazil’s farm output. Embrapa has a high research
spend (about US$ 20 million per hectare compared to
US$ 5 million per hectare in India), and also has research
arms in tropical countries to source high yielding varieties
which are later indigenized. The Brazilian government
has also taken significant measures to improve the
agriculture ecosystem. These are:
• High access and availability of subsidized rural credit
(about 85 percent participation)
• Creation of innovative agri–financial instruments like
sale option contracts
• Rural insurance (about 10 percent cultivated area
covered as of 2009)
• Strong investments in storage, transportation, and
port infrastructure
• Policy co–ordination across ministries to reduce
taxation, tariffs, etc.

 | I A — C F O

BRAZIL  THE AGRICULTURE REVOLUTION
(continued)

E . | Brazil’s position in food trade

  

     

 
    









 
 

  
 
 



 
 
  
 
  


!"# 
$

Sources: FAO, USDA.

E . | Brazil’s productivity across crops

 
       


 
    
 






        

        !"      

Sources: FAO, USDA.

T B C G | 

 E . | Soya Agri Zone comprising of key producer states
Source: Department of Agriculture.
The nature of interventions introduced in
agri zones would depend on the issues
identified with the particular crop (see
Exhibit 7.9). Public and private initiatives are
fundamentally more suited to target certain
types of issues and hence a combination of
these could be used to develop a holistic
intervention.
Agri zones would create a conducive ecosystem
to boost crop production through multiple
means — regulatory changes, accelerated
public investments, financial, and other
incentives (see Exhibit 7.10).
A central government agency would be
responsible for overseeing the creation,
implementation, and progress of agri zones.
While various state bodies would be engaged
in the creation of agri zones, each zone would
have a multi–state nodal agency. Funding
would be undertaken jointly by the center and
the state governments with the central
government funding, contingent on
implementation progress and matching
investments from states. This will ensure that
states prioritize the agri zones they choose to
 | I A — C F O
participate in. An action plan for the crop zone
model is set out in Exhibit 7.11
Soya agri zone: Soya bean is an important
oilseed for India and contributes over 17
percent of India’s edible oil requirements (see
Exhibit 7.12). India’s total soya oil consumption
in 2010 was estimated at approximately 2.7
million MT of which about 50 percent is
imported in the form of crude soya oil. The
crude oil is refined and then sold for domestic
consumption. Increasing production is critical
for multiple reasons:
• Reduce imports that cost approximately Rs.
50 billion in foreign exchange each year
• Low utilization of 30 to 40 percent of
extraction capacities increases the cost of
soya oil
• Soya oil is perceived as beneficial from a
public health perspective compared to
other sources like palm oil
• Soya meal, a by–product of processing, is a
key input for the livestock industry
E . | Soya Agri Zone comprising of key producer states

 
   !

 "# $


 
       


 
   
     


    
 



        

    
 
  

     
   

       

Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, MOSPI, BCG analysis.

1
Rice and wheat.
2
Primarily fruits and vegetables.
3
Compared to Brazil, United States and China.

E . | Multiple means to enable crop ecosystem

Illustrative — incentives to vary by crop type

Regulatory changes
 ! 
   #$%
  
 
 #   
   

   


 &      
 


Accelerated public investments Financial incentives
   
        
    
 
 

  
  Ecosystem enabled via 

  
 

  multiple means   
      

  
 !"      
  
    
 
  
      
  

       

Other incentives    
      


   
   
 

1
Contract farming, producer companies, farmer co–operatives etc.

T B C G | 

 E . | Action Plan to Create Crop Zones

 


 ! "#$
 %
#



    
     
             

  
           


 
 


  
    

 



 
     

 

 ! $%& !"#

 ' !%$ '#

(
 
     )  

 
 !* +, 
, -., 

        
 +,
,


 '* .
 +,
,

+, 
,
  /   
  )      0 
 , ,  



 
  


 
, 1 %
(  
        ) 
 !*  2 

  



   ,   
   
    +
3  %

 '* +
3  3
   , 1 2 %
-    )       
     
 

     2
 
  

  ,   

 

Sources: Literature review, BCG analysis.

E . | Soya a key source of edible oil

Soya — One of the largest edible oil sources in India

  
  

 ! 

   


  (


   $  %
#   (
 ( ## 
  #$


 ( # % 
  (
   

  (

 

     


)) "#$  # % 
 & '

Sources: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Indiastat.

 | I A — C F O

However, the soya ecosystem has multiple issues
impeding production growth (see Exhibit 7.13).
An agri zone–based intervention could
significantly increase production. As Madhya
Pradesh (about 60 percent), Maharashtra (about
28 percent), and Rajasthan (about 8 percent)
constitute approximately 95 percent of the
production, it would be ideal to notify them as
the Soya Agri Zone (SAZ). Specific interventions,
as detailed below, could be introduced in these
states to boost soya production.
Incentives identified for SAZ are as follows:
Regulatory reforms
• Amend APMC in SAZ states to allow direct
soya procurement from farmers.
• Create enabling provisions for contract
farming of soya, like standardized contracts,
contract enforcement agency etc.
Accelerated public investments
• Increase irrigation coverage for soya bean
from about 2 percent currently to
E . | Low yields and poor irrigation inhibit soya bean production
 
approximately 80 percent over the next 15
years.
• Tractor services via subsidized lease–based
model to be operated by private players.
• R&D in hybrids / GM targeting productivity
gains of about 3.5 percent per annum.
• Establishment of soya demonstration farms
throughout SAZ states.
Financial incentives
• Tax holiday and investment credit on
processing infrastructure within SAZ.
• Logistics rebate for soya meal transportation
to ports for inland units.
These incentives together create a favorable
ecosystem which is highly remunerative for
farmers. If targeted yields are achieved, India
could be self–sufficient in soya by 2020 and
expect a large surplus of about 5 million MT
by 2025. Economic benefits accruing from
the SAZ clearly outweigh the public

   
 

     
 

 
          
 

 

  


   
! " # 
$  %  &
 %  "  
  
 

  




     
  ' %

Source: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation.

T B C G | 

 investments in irrigation or subsidies (see
Exhibit 7.14).
Agriculture, without doubt, has massive
potential to generate equitable growth. It can
change the trajectory of our economy in the
years to come. Many national and international
players — like Suguna Poultry, Ruchi Soya,
Cargill, and Monsanto — are building large
businesses around this opportunity. Many
more are waiting on the sidelines to enter this
space. Their entry can unleash large
investments, thereby creating millions of jobs,
increasing supply chain efficiencies, and
improving farmer livelihoods.
E . | Economic impact of Soya Agri Zone
 
The full potential of Indian agriculture can
only be realized through the creation of a
shared vision backed by strong political will to
ensure timely execution.
And what are the consequences of a status
quo?
Stagnant agricultural growth has dire
consequences for a populous country like
India, which also aspires to become an
economic superpower. With the extent of food
shortage projected in 2020, mass social unrest,
spiraling inflation, and burgeoning imports are
a very real threat. Majority of the changes


    

&
 '



 ! ! ! 

 !  !  !

       


 
       


  


! 
% 



%


  "
#$   
  
 


   
 
   






 
 



  
            


Sources: Solvent Extractors Association, Ministry of Water Resources, Solvent Extractors Associations, Analyst reports, Press releases, BCG analysis.
1
At constant prices.

 | I A — C F O

required to avert this situation are institutional
in nature and will not happen overnight. In
any case, India has a track record of delays in
implementation of key reforms. A knee–jerk
reaction, on the other hand, would be too
disruptive and may not fly in a democratic set
up like India’s.
Having said that, it is also true that India is
much better placed today, as compared with
the 1960s, in terms of the capabilities required
to change its course. It has become a global
manufacturing hub for key industries, boasts
of technical superiority in areas like IT and
biotechnology, and powers the global economy
with its skilled manpower. In addition,
dissemination of information has also
simplified immensely due to high telephony
and media penetration in rural India.
This report should thus be viewed as a call for
action to all stakeholders. Agriculture must be
their priority. We ignore agriculture at our own
peril; for soon it may reach a point of no
return.
NOTE:
1. Farmers are sold options to sell to the government at a
particular price. Government has the flexibility to pay
the farmer for options held in case it decides not to
procure.
2. Part premium subsidized by the government while the
farmer’s credit limit increases by 15 percent which
reduces his premium component.
T B C G | 
FOR FURTHER READING
The Boston Consulting Group publishes
other reports and articles on related
topics that may be of interest to senior
executives. Recent examples include:
 | I A — C F O
Aadhaar: An Indian Megatrend
A report by The Boston Consulting Group,
March 2012
Galvanizing Support: The Role of
Government in Advancing Adoption
of Mobile Financial Services
A report by The World Economic Forum in
collaboration with The Boston Consulting
Group, March 2012
The Tiger Roars: An In–depth
Analysis of How a Billion Plus
People Consumer
A report by The Boston Consulting Group
in association with The Confederation of
Indian Industry (CII), February 2012
Going to Market in Developing
Economies: The Consumer Insight
Advantage
BCG Perspectives, January 2012
Prime Minister’s Council on Trade
and Industry: Sub–Committee on
Improving Agricultural Production
and Food Security
A report by The Boston Consulting Group,
November 2010
The Next Billions: Business
Strategies to Enhance Food Value
Chains and Empower the Poor
A report by World Economic Forum in
collaboration with the Boston Consulting
Group, January 2009
 NOTE TO THE READER
About the Authors
Ashish Iyer is a Partner and Director of
The Boston Consulting Group. He is
the Leader for BCG’s Strategy Practice
in the Asia–Pacific Region. He has 15
years of consulting experience in India
having served multiple Indian
companies across various sectors.
Abheek Singhi is a Partner and Director
of The Boston Consulting Group and
Head of BCG’s Consumer Goods
Practice in India. He has 14 years of
consulting experience in India having
served multiple companies across
consumer facing industries.
Acknowledgments
During the preparation of this report,
members of The Boston Consulting
Group interacted with several experts
from industry, government and
academia. The authors would
specifically like to thank the following
for their valuable inputs and insights:
Dr. Ashok Ganguly
MP, Rajya Sabha and former Chairman,
Hindustan Lever
Mr. Jamshyd N. Godrej
Chairman and Managing Director of Godrej
& Boyce Manufacturing Company
Limited
Mr. M. S. Banga
Senior Partner at Clayton Dubilier & Rice
and ex–President, Global Foods, Home and
Personal Care and member of the Unilever
Executive
Dr. M. S. Swaminathan
Founder and Chairman, MS Swaminathan
Research Foundation
Mr. Mukesh Ambani For Further Contact
Chairman, Reliance Industries Limited If you would like to discuss the themes
and content of this report, please
contact:
Mr. Rakesh Mittal
Vice–Chairman and Managing Director of
India
Bharti Enterprises
Ashish Iyer
Partner and Director
Mr. Raman Ahuja
BCG Mumbai
Vice-president, FieldFresh Foods
+91 22 6749 7249
iyer.ashish@bcg.com
Dr. Y. K. Alagh
Chairman, IRMA and Former Union
Abheek Singhi
Minister
Partner and Director
BCG Mumbai
We gratefully acknowledge the +91 22 6749 7007
contribution of Vikram Bhalla from singhi.abheek@bcg.com
BCG for serving as a thought partner in
the initial development of this report.
We further thank our colleagues Arvind
Subramanian, Saurabh Tripathi, Anand
Raghuraman, Kanishka Raja, Karishma
Bhalla, Sachin Kotak, Gautam Patil,
Arup Halder, Mamta Ghalian for their
contribution in writing this report.
We also thank Janmejaya Sinha,
Chairman BCG Asia Pacific as well as
Arindam Bhattacharya, Managing
Director, BCG India for their support
and guidance.
A special thanks to Jasmin Pithawala
for managing the marketing process
and Jamshed Daruwalla, Kim Friedman,
Pradeep Hire, Rahul Surve, Nevin
Varghese and Sajit Vijayan for their
contributions towards the design and
production of this report. We also
acknowledge the support of Vikas Kaul
in providing editorial support for this
report.
T B C G | 
 | I A — C F O
© The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. 2012. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at:

E–mail: bcg–info@bcg.com
Fax: +91 22 6749 7001, attention BCG/Permissions
Mail: BCG/Permissions
The Boston Consulting Group (India) Private Limited
Nariman Bhavan
14th Floor
Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
India

To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e–alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcgperspectives.com.

Follow bcg.perspectives on Facebook and Twitter.

07/12
T B C G | C
Abu Dhabi Chicago Kiev Nagoya Shanghai
Amsterdam Cologne Kuala Lumpur New Delhi Singapore
Athens Copenhagen Lisbon New Jersey Stockholm
Atlanta Dallas London New York Stuttgart
Auckland Detroit Los Angeles Oslo Sydney
Bangkok Dubai Madrid Paris Taipei
Barcelona Düsseldorf Melbourne Perth Tel Aviv
Beijing Frankfurt Mexico City Philadelphia Tokyo
Berlin Geneva Miami Prague Toronto
Boston Hamburg Milan Rio de Janeiro Vienna
Brussels Helsinki Minneapolis Rome Warsaw
Budapest Hong Kong Monterrey San Francisco Washington
Buenos Aires Houston Montréal Santiago Zurich
Canberra Istanbul Moscow São Paulo
Casablanca Jakarta Mumbai Seattle
Chennai Johannesburg Munich Seoul bcg.com